Betty Runyon v. the State of Texas
This text of Betty Runyon v. the State of Texas (Betty Runyon v. the State of Texas) 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
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 2, 2024.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-24-00034-CR
BETTY RUNYON, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 424th District Court Burnet County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 54748
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, less than one gram, and sentenced to five years’ incarceration on November 16, 2023. No timely motion for new trial was filed. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was due by December 16, 2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).
A court of appeals may grant an extension of time if, within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party files (a) the notice of appeal in the trial court, and (b) a motion for extension of time in the court of appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(2) (governing motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal). The fifteenth day after December 16, 2023 was December 31, 2023.
Appellant’s pro se notice of appeal was dated by hand on December 20, 2023 and filed December 27, 2023, within 15 days of the due date. Appellant, however, did not file a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal.
A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). When a notice of appeal, but no motion for extension of time, is filed within the 15-day period, the court of appeals can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id
On February 28, 2024, the parties were notified that the appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless a party demonstrated that the court has jurisdiction. No response has been received.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson. Do Not Publish — Tex.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
Betty Runyon v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betty-runyon-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.