Renald Noble v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 12, 2013
• Docket: 05-13-00904-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 12, 2013

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00904-CR

REGINALD NOBLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F00-50025-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Francis, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice Francis Reginald Noble was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and was sentenced

to life in prison. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Noble v. State, No. 08-

01-00035-CR, 2002 WL 221886 (Tex. App.––El Paso Feb. 14, 2002, pet. ref’d) (not designated

for publication).1 The Court now has appellant’s pro se “amended motion for leave to file notice

of appeal in rule 26.2, rule 26.3, and rule 25.2(b).” Attached to the document are other pro se

documents, including an “amended motion for leave to file writ of mandamus under Tex. R.

App. 72.1 and 72.2”; “amended motion for leave to file for forensic D.N.A. testing under chapter

64, art. 64.01(c)(2)”; “amended motion for leave to file brief for an oral argument in rule

38.1(h)”; and correspondence indicating appellant also wishes to file a bill of review.

1 The appeal, originally filed in this Court and docketed as cause no. 05-00-02050-CR, was transferred to the El Paso Court of Appeals under a docket equalization order of the Texas Supreme Court. Appellant’s June 21, 2013 notice of appeal is untimely as to his 2000 conviction and this

Court has no authority to grant appellant an out-of-time appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a);

Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam). Moreover, Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 72 governs original proceedings filed in the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals; original proceedings filed in this Court are governed by rule 52. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52, 72. Finally, this is not the proper Court in which to file a motion for post-conviction

DNA testing under chapter 64. See TEX. CODE CRIM. P. ANN. arts. 64.01–.05 (West 2006 &

Supp. 2012).

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 130904F.U05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

REGINALD NOBLE, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-13-00904-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F00-50025-K. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices O’Neill and Fillmore participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered July 12, 2013

–3–