Ex Parte Ramone Coleman
This text of Ex Parte Ramone Coleman (Ex Parte Ramone Coleman) 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
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00183-CR
EX PARTE RAMONE COLEMAN
----------
FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 9 OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Ramone Coleman attempts to appeal the trial court’s January 16, 2013
denial of his post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. See Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072, § 8 (West 2005). Coleman filed a notice of
appeal on April 29, 2013. On May 3, 2013, we sent him a letter stating our
concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the notice of appeal
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. was not timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). We informed him that the
appeal could be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal
filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before May 13,
2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.
Although Coleman filed a response, it does not state any grounds for
continuing this appeal. In his response, he argues that his request for findings of
fact and conclusions of law extends the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. It
does not. See Montoya v. State, No. 07-02-00247-CR, 2002 WL 1732519, at *1
(Tex. App.––Amarillo July 25, 2002, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (not designated for
publication). Moreover, even if the time period for filing an appeal were extended
due to the filing of his request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
notice of appeal would still have been late, and we do not have authority to grant
an out-of-time appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1998) (reasoning that if an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals
has no jurisdiction to address its merits and can take no action other than to
dismiss it). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex.
R. App. P. 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 20, 2013
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ex Parte Ramone Coleman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-ramone-coleman-texapp-2013.