Juslet Joseph v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 18, 2025
• Docket: 07-25-00083-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00083-CR

JUSLET JOSEPH, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 181st District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 071285-B, Honorable John Board, Presiding

March 18, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Juslet Joseph, appeals his conviction for aggravated assault 1 and

sentence to twenty-five years of confinement. We dismiss the untimely appeal for want

of jurisdiction and because Appellant has no right of appeal.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(b)(1). The trial court sentenced Appellant on February 13, 2017. Because no motion for

new trial was filed, a notice of appeal was due within thirty days after sentencing, by

March 15, 2017. 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 on

February 14, 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 and that Appellant has

waived the right of appeal. The certification comports with the record before the Court.

By letter of February 19, 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 filed a response but has not

demonstrated grounds for continuing the appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and based on the trial

court’s certification.

Per Curiam