Rafael Hinojosa AKA Rafael Hinojosa, Iii v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 10, 2005
• Docket: 13-05-00427-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                             NUMBER 13-05-427-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_  _________________________________________________________________

RAFAEL HINOJOSA A/K/A RAFAEL HINOJOSA III,         Appellant,

                                           v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                              Appellee.

_  _________________________________________________________________

                  On appeal from the 103rd District Court

                          of Cameron County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza

                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, RAFAEL HINOJOSA A/K/A RAFAEL HINOJOSA III, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas.  Sentence in this cause was imposed on April 8, 2005.  An untimely motion for new trial was filed on May 18, 2005.   The notice of appeal was due to be filed on May 8, 2005, but was not filed until July 5, 2005.   Said notice of appeal is untimely filed.

Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 provides that the court of appeals may grant an extension of time for filing notice of appeal if such notice is filed within  fifteen days of the last day allowed and within the same period a motion is filed in the court of appeals reasonably explaining the need for such extension.  Appellant failed to file his notice of appeal and a motion requesting an extension of time within such period.  The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The Court, having considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to timely perfect his appeal, and the State=s motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  The State=s motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction is GRANTED.  The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 10th day of November, 2005.