Peoples State Bank v. Demie Milayne Raffaelli and Thomas McPhillips Raffaelli
This text of Peoples State Bank v. Demie Milayne Raffaelli and Thomas McPhillips Raffaelli (Peoples State Bank v. Demie Milayne Raffaelli and Thomas McPhillips Raffaelli) 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
Peoples State Bank, the appellant in this case, has filed a motion to dismiss its interlocutory appeal as moot. Pursuant to Rule 42.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1.
We dismiss the appeal.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: March 4, 2009
Date Decided: March 5, 2009
mal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-indent: 0in } body { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal }
______________________________
No. 06-05-00276-CR
NATHANIEL THREADGILL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 102nd Judicial District Court
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 05F0042-102
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nathaniel Threadgill appeals from his conviction by a jury for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Sentence was imposed November 15, 2005. No motion for new trial or other motion was filed that would serve to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed thirty-one days later, December 16, 2005. Although the motion indicates that hand delivery was made on opposing counsel before that date, it does not indicate that the notice was mailed before that date, and it contains no other internal dating. We contacted the district clerk, who informed us that there is no indication in their records that they received the document through the mail.
A defendant must file his or her notice of appeal "(1) within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order; or (2) within 90 days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial." Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). The notice was untimely.
A late notice of appeal is considered timely and thus invokes the appellate court's jurisdiction if (1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing, (2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and (3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Further, when a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen-day period but no timely motion for extension of time is filed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction. Id., citing Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed, and because no timely motion to extend time was filed, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Date Submitted: January 17, 2006
Date Decided: January 18, 2006
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Peoples State Bank v. Demie Milayne Raffaelli and Thomas McPhillips Raffaelli, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoples-state-bank-v-demie-milayne-raffaelli-and-t-texapp-2009.