Brian Daniel Gaubatz v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 20, 2005
• Docket: 01-05-00768-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion To issue October 20, 2005

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NOS. 01-05-00768-CR

           01-05-00769-CR

           01-05-00770-CR

           01-05-00771-CR

  _____________

BRIAN DANIEL GAUBATZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 978335, 959572, 959573, and 959574

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               We lack jurisdiction to hear these appeals. The trial court sentenced appellant, Brian Daniel Gaubatz, and signed a final judgment in each case on April 26, 2005. Brian Daniel Gaubatz filed untimely pro se motions for new trial in each of the above referenced cases on August 1, 2005. A motion for new trial that is filed more than 30 days after sentencing does not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. Mendez v. State, 914 S.W.2d 579, 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Therefore, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal was May 26, 2005, 30 days after sentencing. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).

                Brian Daniel Gaubatz filed pro se notices of appeal in each of the above referenced cases on August 1, 2005, 97 days after the deadline. The pro se notices of appeal were deposited in the mail on July 26, 2005, according to the postmark on the copy of the envelopes included in the clerk’s record. Because the notices of appeal were mailed after the filing deadline, they did not comply with Rule 9.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the “mailbox rule.” See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b).

               An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction to hear the case. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

               We therefore dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

               All pending motions are denied as moot.

               It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Hanks.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).