Jose Diaz v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 10, 2005
• Docket: 01-05-00062-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued March 10, 2005

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NOS. 01-05-00061-CR

          01-05-00062-CR

JOSE DIAZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 995702 and 995703

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               We lack jurisdiction to hear these appeals. The trial court sentenced appellant, Jose Diaz, and signed final judgments in these cases on November 18, 2004. Appellant deposited a motion for new trial and a notice of appeal in each case in the mail on January 7, 2005, according to the postmark on the copy of the envelope included in the clerk’s records.

               Motions for new trial were due on Monday, December 20, 2004. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 21.4(a). Because the motions for new trial were mailed after the filing deadline, they were untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b). A motion for new trial that is untimely does not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. Mendez v. State, 914 S.W.2d 579, 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

               Therefore the deadline for filing the notices of appeal was also Monday, December 20, 2004. Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a)(1). However, the notices of appeal were mailed after the filing deadline and were untimely.

               An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction to hear the case. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

               We therefore dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Hanks.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).