Perales, Armando v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 20, 2002
• Docket: 01-02-00539-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 20, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NOS. 01-02-00539-CR

01-02-00540-CR

ARMANDO PERALES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 851342 and 851341

MEMORANDUM OPINION

We are without jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. Appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced in these cases on January 31, 2002. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, new trial, and in arrest of judgment on March 28, 2002. Notice of appeal was filed in both cases on April 24, 2002.

A timely-filed motion for new trial extends the deadline for filing notice of appeal from 30 days to 90 days after imposition of sentence. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), (2). A motion for new trial is due no later than 30 days after the date of sentencing. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4. Appellant's motion, filed 56 days after he was sentenced, was untimely. An untimely motion for new trial does not extend the deadline for filing notice of appeal. Mendez v. State, 914 S.W.2d 579, 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Therefore, appellant's notice of appeal was due in each case on Monday, March 4, 2002, because the thirtieth day after sentencing fell on a weekend. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a). Appellant's notice of appeal in each case was filed 51 days late.

We therefore dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Schneider, and Justices Nuchia and Radack.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.