Jose Luis Hernandez v. State
This text of Jose Luis Hernandez v. State (Jose Luis Hernandez v. State) 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.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-20-00046-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________
JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina
Appellant, Jose Luis Hernandez, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from
judgments issued in trial court cause number CR-1118-13-G in the 370th District Court of
Hidalgo County, Texas. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On March 27, 2014, the trial court sentenced appellant for two counts of attempt
to commit capital murder of a peace officer and three counts of aggravated kidnapping. Over five years later, on December 27, 2019, appellant filed a notice of appeal of the
judgements.
On January 22, 2020, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared the
appeal was not timely perfected. Appellant was further informed the appeal would be
dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the
Court’s directive. Since that correspondence, appellant filed several motions, including a
motion to extend the deadline. In the motions, appellant generally claims ineffective
assistance of counsel among other various attacks on the judgment, but he failed to cure
the defect.
This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed
notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a
timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the
merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
Unless a motion for new trial is timely filed, a notice of appeal must be filed within
thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day
the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Where a timely
motion for new trial has been filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days
after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. See id. R. 26.2(a)(2). The
time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the deadline
for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying with Rule
10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 26.3.
2 Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed more than five years after sentence was
imposed, was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See
Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Moreover, jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus
relief in felony cases rests exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (Vernon Supp. 2011); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles
ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1995); In re McAfee, 53 S.W .3d 715, 717–18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001,
orig. proceeding).
Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing a post-conviction writ
of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the
availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.); see also Ex parte
Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (per curiam). The appeal is
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. Accordingly, appellant’s motions for
extension of time, for counsel, and to remand are hereby DISMISSED AS MOOT.
JAIME TIJERINA Justice
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 3rd day of December, 2020.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jose Luis Hernandez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-luis-hernandez-v-state-texapp-2020.