Melanie Sue Knighten v. State

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-20-00044-CR

MELANIE SUE KNIGHTEN, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13F0483-102

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Melanie Sue Knighten has filed an untimely notice of appeal from a conviction of

possession of less than one gram of a penalty-group-one controlled substance 1 and the resulting two-year sentence. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The judgment of conviction in this matter indicates that Knighten’s sentence was imposed on February 4, 2020, and that her notice of appeal was filed on March 9, 2020, thirty- four days after imposition of sentence. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2(b); Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d 39, 43–44 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (under “prisoner mailbox rule,” pro se inmate’s notice is deemed filed when document is received by prison authorities for mailing).

There is nothing in the appellate record to indicate that Knighten filed a motion for new trial. In the absence of a timely motion for new trial, Knighten, to perfect her appeal, was required to file her notice of appeal within thirty days of the date sentence was imposed, or on or before March 5, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). The notice of appeal, therefore, was untimely.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam).

We notified Knighten by letter that her notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We gave Knighten twenty days to respond to our letter and to demonstrate how we had jurisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b).

3

the noted defect. Knighten filed a response that failed to demonstrate how this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal.

Because Knighten did not timely perfect her appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: May 4, 2020 Date Decided: May 5, 2020

Do Not Publish