James Kevin Coons v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 11, 2007
• Docket: 14-07-00777-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 11, 2007

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 11, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-07-00777-CR

NO. 14-07-00778-CR

JAMES KEVIN COONS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 461986 & 461988

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant sought DNA testing of evidence containing biological material in possession of the State in these two causes.  On April 13, 2005, the trial court issued orders in each cause for DNA testing of the remaining evidence.  On August 8, 2007, the State filed a motion for finding, attaching the results of the DNA testing.  The proof showed that the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Lab, which tested the DNA, was unable to develop a profile that would exclude or include appellant as a possible contributor to the unknown biological evidence.  Accordingly, on August 8, 2007, the trial court signed an order in both causes, finding that the results of the DNA testing performed in these cases were not favorable to appellant and it was not reasonably probable that, had the DNA testing results been available before or during trial, appellant would not have been prosecuted or convicted.  Appellant=s notices of appeal were not filed until September 12, 2007.  Although the notices of appeal were mailed, the postmark shows a mailing date of September 11, 2007.

A defendant=s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).  A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction.  Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal.  Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal.  Id.

Accordingly, the appeals are ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed October 11, 2007.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Fowler, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).