Channel, Lawaski v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 25, 2002
• Docket: 01-02-00481-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 25, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-02-00481-CR

LAWASKI CHANNEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 23rd District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 40,741

MEMORANDUM OPINION

We are without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Appellant was sentenced in this case on February 21, 2002. ⁽¹⁾ No motion for new trial was filed. The deadline for filing notice of appeal was therefore Monday, March 25, 2002, because the thirtieth day after sentencing fell on a weekend. Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a)(1). Notice of appeal was deposited in the mail on March 27, 2002, according to the postmark on the copy of the envelope provided by the district clerk's office. Because the notice of appeal was mailed after the filing deadline, it 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). Although the notice of appeal was filed within the 15-day time period for filing a motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal, no such motion for extension of time was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.

We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Mirabal, Taft, and Alcala.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

1.

Although the judgment was signed by the trial judge on April 15, 2002, the deadline for filing notice of appeal began to run on the day sentence was imposed. Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 109-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). This is because a written judgment is merely a record of events that have occurred in fact and is not itself the conviction. Thus, it is the pronouncement of sentence, and not the signing of the judgment, that constitutes the appealable event. Id. at 109 n.1; see also Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).