Ramiro Rogerio v. State
This text of Ramiro Rogerio v. State (Ramiro Rogerio 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
No motion for new trial will lie from an order deferring adjudication. Hammack v. State, 963 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, no pet.). Rogerio's motion for new trial was a nullity and did not extend the time for perfecting appeal. Id. at 201; see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. Because notice of appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. Id.; see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
The appeal is dismissed.
Jan P. Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: January 17, 2002
Do Not Publish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
Ramiro Rogerio v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramiro-rogerio-v-state-texapp-2002.