Latesta Marie Onyenike v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Latesta Marie Onyenike v. State

DecidedOctober 30, 2008

Docket14-08-00683-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Latesta Marie Onyenike v. State (Latesta Marie Onyenike 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.

Bluebook

Latesta Marie Onyenike v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 30, 2008

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 30, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00683-CR

LATESTA MARIE ONYENIKE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1151603

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant pled guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court entered an order on February 1, 2008, placing appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for two years. On February 1, 2008, the conditions of community supervision were amended. Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed until July 11, 2008.

A defendant=s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence or other appealable order is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). If the defendant is appealing a sentence and files a timely motion for new trial, the defendant may file a notice of appeal within 90 days of the imposition of sentence. See id. at 26.2(a)(2). A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id.

Furthermore, an order amending the conditions of community supervision is not an appealable order. See Bailey v. State, 160 S.W.3d 11, 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed October 30, 2008.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Boyce.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 30, 2008

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 30, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00683-CR

LATESTA MARIE ONYENIKE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1151603

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant pled guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court entered an order on February 1, 2008, placing appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for two years. On February 1, 2008, the conditions of community supervision were amended. Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed until July 11, 2008.

A defendant=s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence or other appealable order is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). If the defendant is appealing a sentence and files a timely motion for new trial, the defendant may file a notice of appeal within 90 days of the imposition of sentence. See id. at 26.2(a)(2). A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id.

Furthermore, an order amending the conditions of community supervision is not an appealable order. See Bailey v. State, 160 S.W.3d 11, 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed October 30, 2008.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Boyce.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Latesta Marie Onyenike v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latesta-marie-onyenike-v-state-texapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack