Floyd Pleasant Tarvin, IV v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 6, 2008
Docket01-06-00902-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Floyd Pleasant Tarvin, IV v. State (Floyd Pleasant Tarvin, IV 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.

Bluebook
Floyd Pleasant Tarvin, IV v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Opinion issued November 6, 2008





In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas



NO. 01-06-00902-CR



FLOYD PLEASANT TARVIN, IV, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 950948



MEMORANDUM OPINION



We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Appellant, Floyd Pleasant Tarvin, IV, pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated. On July 22, 1987, the trial court assessed appellant's punishment at confinement for 30 days and a $100 fine. On the same date, the trial court signed a final judgment in cause number 950948.

On April 12, 2006, appellant filed a pro se document, in trial court cause number 950948, styled "petitioner's motion to vacate and set aside offense and conviction." The document alleges that appellant did not waive his right to a jury trial and that he was denied the right to a jury trial. We construe the April 12, 2006 "motion to vacate and set aside offense and conviction" as a notice of appeal.

Appellant was sentenced on July 22, 1987. Notice of appeal was due 30 days after sentencing, August 21, 1987. The notice of appeal was filed on April 12, 2006, 6,839 days after the deadline for filing. Thus, the appeal is untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. Because an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest an appellate court with jurisdiction, this appeal must be dismissed. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Strange v. State, 258 S.W.3d 184, 605-06 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd.) (citing Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

We deny all pending motions as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Hanks, and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

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

Related

Strange v. State
258 S.W.3d 184 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Douglas v. State
987 S.W.2d 605 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
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)
Floyd Pleasant Tarvin, IV v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-pleasant-tarvin-iv-v-state-texapp-2008.