Daniel Hudson v. State
This text of Daniel Hudson v. State (Daniel Hudson 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.
Opinion
NO. 07-03-0046-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
FEBRUARY 20, 2003
______________________________
DANIEL HUDSON, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2000-433479; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J. (footnote: -6)
MEMORANDUM OPINION (footnote: 1)
Following a plea of guilty, appellant was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and punishment was assessed at ten years confinement, suspended for ten years. Appellant’s sentence was suspended on November 25, 2002, and an untimely motion for new trial was filed on January 17, 2003, as well as the notice of appeal.
By letter dated January 22, 2003, this Court requested that counsel for appellant show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Rules 21.4(a) and 26.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. In response, counsel filed a motion for leave to file an out of time appeal explaining that after his appointment on January 14, 2003, he relied on the trial court’s indication that sentence had been imposed on December 18, 2002, and filed a motion for new trial and notice of appeal on January 17, 2003.
We are not unsympathetic to counsel’s predicament; however, a timely and proper notice of appeal is necessary to invoke our jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). This Court is without jurisdiction to address the merits of an appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal if it is not timely perfected. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998). Appellant may have a remedy by filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of an out-of-time appeal. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2003).
Accordingly, the purported appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
FOOTNOTES
-6:
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
1:
Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Daniel Hudson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-hudson-v-state-texapp-2003.