Cordova, Jose Angel

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0630-10

JOSE ANGEL CORDOVA, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS HALE COUNTY

Per Curiam.

OPINION

Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine and, after the trial court revoked his community supervision, he was sentenced to confinement for two years in a State Jail Facility. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in accord with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 498 (1967). Cordova v. State, No. 07-09-00371-CR (Tex.App-Amarillo, delivered April 19, 2010). On June 22, 2010, Appellant timely filed his petition for discretionary review in the Court of Appeals. See Tex.R.App.P. 68.2. On July

JOSE ANGEL CORDOVA -2

27, 2010, the Court of Appeals withdrew its opinion, but failed to issue another opinion in its place. On January 6, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued another opinion and affirmed the conviction. Cordova v. State, No. 07-09-00371-CR (Amarillo, delivered January 6, 2011).

The Court of Appeals’s opinion issued on January 6, 2011, was untimely under rule 50 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it was issued more than 60 days after Appellant’s petition for discretionary review had been filed. Accordingly, the court had no jurisdiction to issue that opinion. See Miller v. State, 267 S.W.3d 32 (Tex.Cr.App. 2008); Jones v. State, 280 S.W.3d 847 (Tex.Cr.App. 2006); Beller v. State, 191 S.W.3d 718 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005); Parsons v. State, 187 S.W.3d 385 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005); Ex parte Brashear, 985 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998); Garza v. State, 896 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995). Therefore, the Court of Appeals’s opinion issued on January 6, 2011, is ordered withdrawn, and the original judgment and opinion of the Court of Appeals that issued on April 19, 2010, are reinstated.

In his initial petition for discretionary review Appellant contended, among other things, that the Court of Appeals erred to find there were no arguable grounds for appeal. We agree. Accordingly, we grant ground four only of Appellant’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals dated April 19, 2010, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals to properly consider the arguable issues raised by Appellant.

Delivered April 20, 2011 Do not publish