Bruce Earl Godlock v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 20, 2008
Docket06-08-00179-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Bruce Earl Godlock v. State (Bruce Earl Godlock 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.

Bluebook
Bruce Earl Godlock v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00179-CR ______________________________

BRUCE EARL GODLOCK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 36487-B

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION

Bruce Earl Godlock attempts to appeal from his conviction for delivery of a controlled

substance. His sentence was imposed June 5, 2008, and no motion for new trial was filed. His

notice of appeal was filed August 13, 2008.1

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918

S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Rule 26.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

prescribes the time period in which a notice of appeal must be filed by a defendant in order to perfect

appeal in a criminal case. A defendant's notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days after the

day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or within ninety days after sentencing if the

defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX . R. APP . P. 26.2(a); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522.

Because no motion for new trial was filed, the last date Godlock could timely file his notice of

appeal was July 7, 2008, thirty days after the day, according to his motion, the sentence was imposed

in open court. See TEX . R. APP . P. 26.2(a)(1); 4.1(b). Further, no motion for extension of time was

filed in this Court within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal.

1 Counsel filed an "Out of Time Notice of Appeal" on behalf of Godlock. In that notice of appeal, counsel states that Godlock requested and was appointed counsel for appeal on or about June 5, but appointed counsel was not notified by the trial court of the appointment until August 13.

2 Godlock has failed to perfect his appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

Bailey C. Moseley Justice

Date Submitted: August 19, 2008 Date Decided: August 20, 2008

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Olivo v. State
918 S.W.2d 519 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bruce Earl Godlock v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-earl-godlock-v-state-texapp-2008.