Ramon Perez Moreno v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 17, 2005
• Docket: 01-05-00808-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued November 17, 2005

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-05-00808-CR

RAMON PEREZ MORENO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1009143

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The trial court sentenced appellant, Ramon Perez Moreno, and signed a final judgment in this case on June 21, 2005. Appellant filed an untimely motion for new trial in this case on August 17, 2005. A motion for new trial that is filed more than 30 days after sentencing does not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. Mendez v. State, 914 S.W.2d 579, 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The deadline for filing notice of appeal was Monday, August 1, 2005, because the thirtieth day after sentencing fell on a weekend/holiday. Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a)(1).

               Appellant filed his notice of appeal on August 15, 2005, 14 days after the deadline. Notice of appeal was deposited in the mail on August 11,2005, according to the postmark on the copy of the envelope included in the clerk’s record. Because the notice of appeal was mailed after the filing deadline, it did not comply with the “mailbox rule.” See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b). Although the notice of appeal was filed within the 15-day time period for filing a motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal, no such motion for extension of time was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.

               An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction to hear the case. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

               We note that the record reflects that the trial court when assessing punishment followed appellant’s plea bargain agreement with the State, and that appellant signed a waiver of his right to appeal. Additionally, the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right of appeal states that this is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has no right to appeal. 

               We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                Any pending motions are denied as moot.

               It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).