Cleveland Thomas and $832.82 U.S. Currency v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Cleveland Thomas and $832.82 U.S. Currency v. State

DecidedJune 5, 2015

Docket11-15-00100-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Cleveland Thomas and $832.82 U.S. Currency v. State (Cleveland Thomas and $832.82 U.S. Currency 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

Cleveland Thomas and $832.82 U.S. Currency v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed June 5, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-15-00100-CV __________

CLEVELAND THOMAS AND $832.82 U.S. CURRENCY, Appellants V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 39th District Court Haskell County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11,891

MEMORANDUM OPINION Cleveland Thomas filed an untimely notice of appeal. On April 30, 2015, the clerk of this court notified Thomas that his notice of appeal was not timely filed, and we requested that Thomas respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. We informed Thomas that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Thomas filed a response as requested but has not shown grounds upon which this court can continue the appeal.1 The documents on file in this case show that, on November 13, 2014, the trial court signed the forfeiture judgment from which Thomas appeals. The notice of appeal was due to be filed on or before December 15, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Thomas’s notice of appeal was filed in the trial court on April 15, 2015—153 days after the judgment was signed and well after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal or a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Because we are without jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

June 5, 2015 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

1 In his response, Thomas asks this court to allow him “the time needed.” However, this court is not permitted to “alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case.” TEX. R. APP. P. 2. We also note that courts “may not enlarge the period for taking any action under the rules relating to new trials except as stated in these rules.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 5.

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

Opinion filed June 5, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-15-00100-CV __________

CLEVELAND THOMAS AND $832.82 U.S. CURRENCY, Appellants V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 39th District Court Haskell County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11,891

MEMORANDUM OPINION Cleveland Thomas filed an untimely notice of appeal. On April 30, 2015, the clerk of this court notified Thomas that his notice of appeal was not timely filed, and we requested that Thomas respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. We informed Thomas that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Thomas filed a response as requested but has not shown grounds upon which this court can continue the appeal.1 The documents on file in this case show that, on November 13, 2014, the trial court signed the forfeiture judgment from which Thomas appeals. The notice of appeal was due to be filed on or before December 15, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Thomas’s notice of appeal was filed in the trial court on April 15, 2015—153 days after the judgment was signed and well after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal or a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Because we are without jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

June 5, 2015 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

1 In his response, Thomas asks this court to allow him “the time needed.” However, this court is not permitted to “alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case.” TEX. R. APP. P. 2. We also note that courts “may not enlarge the period for taking any action under the rules relating to new trials except as stated in these rules.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 5.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cleveland Thomas and $832.82 U.S. Currency v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-thomas-and-83282-us-currency-v-state-texapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack