Cedric Damar Ford v. the State of Texas
This text of Cedric Damar Ford v. the State of Texas (Cedric Damar Ford 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
In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-24-00061-CR
CEDRIC DAMAR FORD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 202nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 19F1203-202
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cedric Damar Ford has filed an untimely notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment
revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment for
tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. 1 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The judgment of conviction in this matter indicates that Ford’s sentence was imposed on
March 7, 2024, and Ford did not file a motion for new trial, making his notice of appeal due on
or before April 8, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Ford’s notice of appeal was filed on
April 9, 2024, one day beyond the April 8 deadline. Consequently, Ford’s attempt to appeal his
conviction in this matter was untimely.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed
notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d
519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1998) (per curiam).
We notified Ford by letter that his notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the
appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We gave Ford ten days to respond to
our letter and to demonstrate how we had jurisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding the noted
defect. While Ford responded, through counsel, he did not provide a sufficient basis for
retaining this matter on our docket.
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09 (Supp.). 2 Because Ford has not timely perfected his appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. 2
Jeff Rambin Justice
Date Submitted: May 20, 2024 Date Decided: May 21, 2024
Do Not Publish
2 Based on our disposition of this appeal, we deny Ford’s pending motion to abate the appeal to allow him time to seek leave from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to file an out-of-time appeal. As the Court of Criminal Appeals stated in Olivo, “When a notice of appeal, but no motion for extension of time, is filed within the fifteen- day period, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.” Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523. Our disposition will not foreclose Ford’s ability to seek leave to file an out-of-time appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals. 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Cedric Damar Ford v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cedric-damar-ford-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.