Marcus Dwight Booth v. State
This text of Marcus Dwight Booth v. State (Marcus Dwight Booth 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
Opinion filed March 8, 2018
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals __________
Nos. 11-18-00011-CR, 11-18-00012-CR, & 11-18-00013-CR __________
MARCUS DWIGHT BOOTH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 385th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. CR42435, CR42436, & CR42437
MEMORANDUM OPINION Marcus Dwight Booth, Appellant, filed an untimely pro se notice of appeal from his convictions for the offenses of possession of a controlled substance, tampering with physical evidence, and assault on a public servant. We dismiss the appeals. The documents on file in these cases indicate that Appellant’s sentences were imposed on July 14, 2014, and that his pro se notice of appeal was filed in the district clerk’s office on January 8, 2018. When the appeals were filed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the appeals may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We requested that Appellant respond to our letter and show grounds to continue these appeals. Appellant has not filed a response. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2, Appellant’s notice of appeal in each case was due to be filed within thirty days after the date his sentence was imposed in open court. A notice of appeal must be in writing and filed with the clerk of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). The documents on file in this court reflect that Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the trial court more than three years after his sentences were imposed. The notice of appeal was, therefore, untimely. Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Because we have no jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeals. These appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
March 8, 2018 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Willson, J., Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1
1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Marcus Dwight Booth v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-dwight-booth-v-state-texapp-2018.