Joel Carrera v. State

Opinion

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Joel Carrera

            Appellant

Vs.              Nos. 11-04-00210-CR, 11-04-00211-CR, 11-04-00212-CR, & 11-04-00213-CR -- Appeals from Midland County

State of Texas

            Appellee

            The jury found Joel Carrera guilty in all four causes of the offense of delivery of cocaine. The trial court assessed appellant’s punishment in Cause Nos. 11-04-00210-CR and 11-04-00211-CR at confinement for 2 years in a state jail facility. In Cause Nos. 11-04-00212-CR and 11-04-00213-CR, the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement for 10 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, but the court suspended the 10-year sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for 10 years. We dismiss the appeals.

            The sentence in each case was imposed on July 19, 2004. Appellant filed untimely motions for new trial on August 23, 2004. The notices of appeal were filed in the trial court on August 23, 2004. The notices of appeal were 5 days late and, therefore, were not timely pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2. In the trial court in each case, appellant also filed a request for permission to appeal, noting that his notices of appeal were not timely. Appellant did not timely file any such request for an extension in the court of appeals. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3. When this court received the clerk’s records on November 12, 2004, we notified the parties that the notices of appeal appeared to be untimely and requested that appellant respond within 15 days of our letter and provide this court with a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notices of appeal. In our letter, we notified appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(b). Appellant’s counsel responded and explained that appellant had originally informed counsel that he did not desire to appeal and that appellant belatedly notified counsel that he had changed his mind.

            Without timely notices of appeal, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.Cr.App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Cr.App.1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex.Cr.App.1993); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96 (Tex. Cr.App.1988). The requests for permission to appeal that were filed in the trial court were ineffective and cannot operate as Rule 26.3(b) motions for extension in this court. See Moreno v. State, 954 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.App. - San Antonio 1997, no pet’n); Jones v. State, 900 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 1995, no pet’n).

            Therefore, appellant’s requests for an extension are overruled, and the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

December 23, 2004

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.