Ex Parte Salvador Zavala

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-14-00065-CR EX PARTE SALVADOR ZAVALA From the County Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. 52,611 ORDER Salvador Zavala appears to contend in his Motion for Rehearing that we should have granted his motion for an out of time appeal. Appellate courts have no authorization by law, and thus, no jurisdiction, to grant an out of time notice of appeal. Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“The standard for determining jurisdiction is … whether the appeal is authorized by law.”). Because we have no jurisdiction to grant an out of time appeal, the most liberal construction we could give Zavala’s pro se motion was as a motion to extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal. But, as we held, as a motion to extend the time in which to file his notice of appeal, the motion was untimely; thus, we had no jurisdiction to grant relief. Ex parte Zavala, 10-14-00065-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3381 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 27, 2014, no pet. h.) (not designated for publication); See also Wallace v. State, 10-07-00041- CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 3203, *2-3 (Tex. App.—Waco Apr. 25, 2007, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (“We have no jurisdiction over an appeal where the notice is untimely. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Under those circumstances we can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id.”). Accordingly, Zavala’s motion for rehearing is denied. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion denied Order issued and filed April 24, 2014 Do not publish Ex parte Zavala Page 2