David Jose Somoza v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 6, 2023
Docket06-23-00179-CR
StatusPublished

This text of David Jose Somoza v. the State of Texas (David Jose Somoza v. the State of Texas) 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
David Jose Somoza v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-23-00179-CR

DAVID JOSE SOMOZA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 30016

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION

David Jose Somoza filed an untimely notice of appeal from his conviction of bail

jumping and failure to appear,1 for which he was sentenced to seventeen years’ incarceration.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The trial court imposed sentence in this matter on June 28, 2023, and Somoza did not file

a motion for new trial. As a result, Somoza’s notice of appeal was due on or before July 28,

2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Somoza’s notice of appeal was not filed until, at the

earliest, August 27, 2023, well past the deadline for filing such notice. Consequently, Somoza’s

attempt to appeal his judgment of conviction in this matter was untimely. The Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal, we cannot

exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App.

1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam).

By letter dated September 5, 2023, we notified Somoza that his notice of appeal appeared

to be untimely and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We gave

Somoza twenty days to respond to our letter and to demonstrate how we had jurisdiction over the

appeal notwithstanding the noted defect. Somoza responded to our letter explaining that his trial

counsel failed to file a notice of appeal on his behalf after counsel advised Somoza that he had

done so. We are unable to remedy this problem given the current posture of this case.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.10(f). Somoza pled true to one enhancement paragraph, resulting in an enhanced sentence. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42. 2 Because Somoza did not timely file his notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want

of jurisdiction.

Charles van Cleef Justice

Date Submitted: October 5, 2023 Date Decided: October 6, 2023

Do Not Publish

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

Related

Slaton v. State
981 S.W.2d 208 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Olivo v. State
918 S.W.2d 519 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
David Jose Somoza v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-jose-somoza-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.