Jimmy Rodriguez v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 30, 2023
Docket04-23-00716-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Jimmy Rodriguez v. the State of Texas (Jimmy Rodriguez v. the State of Texas) 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
Jimmy Rodriguez v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-00716-CR

Jimmy RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas Trial Court No. 02-05-0160-CRA Honorable Jennifer Dillingham, Judge Presiding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 30, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence in the underlying cause on December 18, 2002. Because

appellant did not file a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on January

17, 2003. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal

was due on February 3, 2003. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant filed a notice of appeal more than

twenty years later—on July 31, 2023.

1 The Honorable Jennifer Dillingham is the current judge of the convicting court. However, the judgment of conviction was signed by the Honorable Stella Saxon. 04-23-00716-CR

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’s jurisdiction. See Olivo

v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A late notice of appeal may be considered

timely so as to invoke a court of appeals’s jurisdiction if (1) it is filed within fifteen days of the

last day allowed for filing, (2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within

fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and (3) the court of appeals

grants the motion for extension of time. Id. Accordingly, because appellant did not file a timely

notice of appeal or a timely request for extension of time to file a notice of appeal, this appeal is

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id.; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d

241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (out-of-time appeal from final felony conviction may be sought

by filing writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure).

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-

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

Related

Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals
802 S.W.2d 241 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Olivo v. State
918 S.W.2d 519 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jimmy Rodriguez v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmy-rodriguez-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.