Jamarrion Freeman v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00149-CR

JAMARRION FREEMAN, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 202nd District Court Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 23F0918-202

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 19, 2023, Jamarrion Freeman pled guilty to the offense of credit card or debit card abuse. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Freeman on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years. On June 10, 2024, the State filed a motion to proceed with adjudication, alleging, among other things, that Freeman had committed a new offense. On July 11, 2024, the trial court adjudicated Freeman’s guilt and sentenced him to two years’ confinement in a state jail facility.

Under Rule 21.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Freeman would have had to file a motion for new trial, to be timely, on or before August 12, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4. Freeman did not file his motion for new trial until September 17, 2024; as a result, he failed to extend the period for perfecting his appeal, and his notice of appeal, to be timely, was also due on or before August 12, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2. Freeman did not file his notice of appeal until September 17, 2024, well beyond the August 12 deadline. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam).

On October 16, 2024, we informed Freeman of the apparent defect in our jurisdiction over his appeal and afforded him the opportunity to respond and, if possible, cure such defect. We informed Freeman that, if he did not respond by October 28, 2024, we would have no choice but to dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction. Freeman did not file a response to our

3

jurisdictional defect letter, though he did file an untimely motion for an extension of the deadline to file his notice of appeal, which we deny.

Because Freeman did not timely perfect his appeal, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Scott E. Stevens

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: November 15, 2024 Date Decided: November 18, 2024

Do Not Publish