Bernard Sykes v. State
This text of Bernard Sykes v. State (Bernard Sykes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion issued August 20, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00222-CR ——————————— BERNARD SYKES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 179th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1512316
MEMORANDUM OPINION After appellant, Bernard Sykes, pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony
offense of delivery of a controlled substance without an agreed punishment
recommendation, and pleaded true to the two enhancement paragraphs, the trial
court placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of five years.1 After a hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke
appellant’s community supervision, the trial court revoked appellant’s community
supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and assessed his punishment at twenty-seven
years’ confinement on November 14, 2018.2 The trial court certified appellant’s
right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). However, appellant did not file his
pro se notice of appeal until March 19, 2019. The trial court then appointed him
appellate counsel. The State has moved to dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction as untimely. We agree, grant the motion, and dismiss this appeal for
want of jurisdiction.
A criminal defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after
the sentence is imposed, or within ninety days after the sentence is imposed if the
defendant has timely filed a motion for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). The
time for filing a notice of appeal may be extended if, within fifteen days of the
deadline for filing the notice of appeal, an appellant files both a notice of appeal and
a motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
26.3; Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 606 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999,
no pet.) (“The limited, 15-day extended time period applies to both the notice and
1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.104(a)(4), 481.114(a), (c) (West 2011). 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.33(a) (West 2011).
2 the motion for extension; both must be filed within the 15-day time period.”). A
notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest
the court of appeals with jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522–23 (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. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210.
Here, the trial court signed appellant’s judgment revoking community
supervision on November 14, 2018, and imposed the sentence that day. Appellant
did not timely file a motion for new trial, making his notice of appeal due by
December 14, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant’s pro se notice of
appeal was not filed until March 19, 2019, 125 days after his sentence was imposed
and, thus, was filed untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3; Douglas, 987 S.W.2d at
606. Under these circumstances, we can take no action other than to dismiss this
appeal for want of jurisdiction.3 See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d
at 526.
3 Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, but that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a) (West 2015); see also Ex parte Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (per curiam).
3 Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as
moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bernard Sykes v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernard-sykes-v-state-texapp-2019.