Donald Flint v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 10, 2008
• Docket: 06-08-00104-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00104-CR ______________________________

DONALD GENE FLINT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 202nd Judicial District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 06F0023-202

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Donald Gene Flint appeals from his jury convictions of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and three counts of indecency with a child/sexual contact. The sentences were imposed March 6, 2008. Flint filed a motion for new trial April 15, 2008, and his notice of appeal was filed May 29, 2008.

According to Rule 21.4, Flint had thirty days after the day sentence was imposed ⁽¹⁾ to file his motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4. Because the thirtieth day fell on a Saturday, Flint had until the following Monday, April 7, 2007, to file a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1. The motion for new trial was filed on April 15. ⁽²⁾ The motion for new trial was untimely. Flint was thus required to file his notice of appeal within thirty days of the date sentence was imposed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Because the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the date sentence was imposed, this appeal is untimely and we are without jurisdiction to hear this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4, 26.2(a).

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: July 9, 2008

Date Decided: July 10, 2008

Do Not Publish

1. The timetable for filing a motion for new trial or a notice of appeal begins when sentence is imposed in open court. Tex. R. App. P. 21.4. Counsel states in the motion for new trial: "The Defendant was sentenced on March 17, 2008. This Motion, filed within the thirty-day timetable, is therefore timely." The judgment was signed March 17; however, sentence was imposed March 6, 2008. Therefore, the motion for new trial was untimely.

2. The certificate of service on the motion for new trial is also dated April 15. Therefore, the mailbox rule does not apply. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b).

ed with this Court, and she has not filed a brief. On July 17, 2006, we contacted Peoples by letter, giving her an opportunity to cure the various defects, and warning her that, if we did not receive an adequate response within ten days, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

          We have received no communication from Peoples. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

                                                                           Donald R. Ross

                                                                           Justice

Date Submitted:      August 22, 2006

Date Decided:         August 23, 2006