Franklin Lee Ray v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Franklin Lee Ray v. State

DecidedNovember 14, 2014

Docket11-14-00279-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Franklin Lee Ray v. State (Franklin Lee Ray 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

Franklin Lee Ray v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed November 14, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-14-00279-CR ___________

FRANKLIN LEE RAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 238th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR39139

MEMORANDUM OPINION Franklin Lee Ray, Appellant, filed an untimely pro se notice of appeal from his conviction for the offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit assault. We dismiss the appeal. The documents on file in this case indicate that Appellant’s sentence was imposed on April 18, 2013, and that his pro se notice of appeal was filed in the district clerk’s office on October 13, 2014. When the appeal was filed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue this appeal. We also informed him that the appeal may be dismissed. Appellant has filed a response but has not shown grounds to continue. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed within thirty days after the date that his sentence was imposed in open court. A notice of appeal must be in writing and filed with the clerk of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the trial court 543 days after his sentence was imposed and was, therefore, untimely. Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Because we have no jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal. This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

November 14, 2014 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

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

Opinion filed November 14, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-14-00279-CR ___________

FRANKLIN LEE RAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 238th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR39139

MEMORANDUM OPINION Franklin Lee Ray, Appellant, filed an untimely pro se notice of appeal from his conviction for the offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit assault. We dismiss the appeal. The documents on file in this case indicate that Appellant’s sentence was imposed on April 18, 2013, and that his pro se notice of appeal was filed in the district clerk’s office on October 13, 2014. When the appeal was filed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue this appeal. We also informed him that the appeal may be dismissed. Appellant has filed a response but has not shown grounds to continue. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed within thirty days after the date that his sentence was imposed in open court. A notice of appeal must be in writing and filed with the clerk of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the trial court 543 days after his sentence was imposed and was, therefore, untimely. Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Because we have no jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal. This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

November 14, 2014 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Franklin Lee Ray v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-lee-ray-v-state-texapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack