Caleb Amyr Ankh-Amen v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 23, 2025
• Docket: 04-25-00012-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00012-CR

Caleb Amyr ANKH-AMEN, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CR3675 Honorable Jennifer Peña, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 23, 2025

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

Appellant, Caleb Amyr Ankh-Amen, attempts to appeal his November 14, 2024,

conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. We dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 26 is essential to vest a 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 (Tex. Crim. App.

1996). Unless a criminal defendant timely files a motion for new trial, the defendant must, to

invoke an appellate court’s jurisdiction, file a notice of appeal within 30 days after the trial court 04-25-00012-CR

either imposes or suspends the defendant’s sentence in open court or enters an appealable order.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). If, however, the defendant files a motion for new trial within 30

days after the date when the trial court imposes or suspends sentence in open court, then the

deadline for filing a notice of appeal is extended to 90 days after the day the sentence is imposed

or suspended in open court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4(a), 26.2(a)(2). Without a timely filed notice

of appeal, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of an appeal and can take no

action other than to dismiss the appeal. See Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2012); Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210.

Here, because the trial court imposed the sentence against Ankh-Amen on November 14,

2024, Ankh-Amen’s deadline for filing either a notice of appeal or a motion for new trial was

December 16, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 21.4(a), 26.2(a). Ankh-Amen’s motion for new

trial and notice of appeal were not, however, filed until December 19, 2024—three days after the

deadline. 1

As a result, on March 10, 2025, we ordered Ankh-Amen to show cause why this appeal

should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Ankh-Amen, through counsel, filed a response

on April 9, 2025, arguing that the notice of appeal was timely through the application of the

mailbox rule, because it was post-marked before the deadline and “arrived at the appropriate

clerk’s office within ten days of” the deadline. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2(b).

But Ankh-Amen’s notice of appeal and motion for new trial were both addressed to the

“290th Criminal District Court,” not to the trial court clerk:

1 Ankh-Amen filed a “Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Sentence and Motion to Vacate Plea Agreement,” which we construe as a motion for new trial. -2- 04-25-00012-CR

As a result, the mailbox rule is inapplicable to this case, and neither Ankh-Amen’s motion

for new trial nor his notice of appeal were timely filed. See Anderson v. State, 625 S.W.3d 128,

130–34 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). Ankh-Amen therefore failed to invoke our jurisdiction, and we

lack jurisdiction to take any action other than to dismiss this appeal. See Castillo, 369 S.W.3d at

198; Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522–26.

Moreover, even if Ankh-Amen had timely filed a notice of appeal, the trial court executed

a certification of defendant’s right of appeal showing that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the

defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial

court’s certification. Cf. Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“If the court

chooses to examine a certification after the record is filed, it has the ability to compare the

certification to the record and, in that instance, a duty to do so.”). Further, in response to our March

10, 2025, order, Ankh-Amen conceded that this is a plea-bargain case, he has no right to appeal,

and, despite his attempts to get permission to appeal, the trial court has declined to grant him

permission to appeal. Therefore, because Ankh-Amen has no right to appeal, we must dismiss this

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending

motions as moot.

DO NOT PUBLISH -3-