Charles Russell Lewis v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 26, 2006
• Docket: 01-06-00913-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 26, 2006

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-06-00913-CR

CHARLES RUSSELL LEWIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1053263

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The trial court sentenced appellant, Charles Russell Lewis, and signed a final judgment in this case on April 26, 2006. Charles Russell Lewis filed an untimely motion for new trial, and therefore the deadline for filing a notice of appeal was May 26, 2006, 30 days after sentencing. 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)

          Charles Russell Lewis filed a notice of appeal on September 14, 2006, 122 days after the deadline. Notice of appeal was deposited in the mail on September 11, 2006, according to the postmark on the copy of the envelope included in the clerk’s record. 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).

          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 appeal 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Do not publish.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).