James Matthew Romero A/K/A Matthew James Romero v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00271-CR

JAMES MATTHEW ROMERO A/K/A MATTHEW JAMES ROMERO, APPELLANT V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 69th District Court Sherman County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1212, Honorable Kimberly Allen, Presiding

October 20, 2025

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Appellant, James Matthew Romero a/k/a Matthew James Romero, proceeding pro se, appeals his conviction for manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance1 and sentence to seventeen years of confinement. We dismiss the untimely appeal for want of jurisdiction and because Appellant has no right of appeal.

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112(e).

The trial court sentenced Appellant on September 9, 2024. Because no timely motion for new trial was filed, a notice of appeal was due within thirty days after sentencing, by October 9, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a) (requiring a notice of appeal in a criminal case to be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed or within ninety days if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial). Appellant filed a notice of appeal almost a year later, on September 24, 2025. Appellant’s untimely notice of appeal, thus, prevents this Court from acquiring jurisdiction over the appeal. See Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, the court of appeals has no option but to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”).

Further, under Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), we are required to dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Here, the trial court’s certification of Appellant’s right of appeal indicates that this is a plea-bargain case with no right of appeal. The certification comports with the record before the Court.

By letter of September 25, 2025, we notified Appellant of the consequences of his late notice of appeal and the trial court’s certification and directed him to show how the Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Appellant has not filed a response or had any further communication with this Court to date.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and based on the trial court’s certification.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.