Reynaldo Ramos v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 12, 2009
• Docket: 14-08-01010-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 12, 2009

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 12, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-01010-CR

REYNALDO RAMOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 645524

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and was sentenced on March 2, 1993, to confinement for twenty-five years  in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.  The record contains no timely motion for new trial.  The record contains several handwritten letters from appellant to the trial judge, which, although somewhat difficult to understand, seem to be attempts to explain why appellant is not guilty of the offense of which he was convicted.  The letters appear to be dated 1992, 2007, and 2008.  One of the letters contains a file stamp of October 29, 2008, and in the handwritten text, it contains the phrase:  AI like to appeal my case.@  The Harris County District Clerk apparently construed this letter to be appellant=s attempted notice of appeal.

A defendant=s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).  A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction.  Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal.  Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal.  Id.

Because appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days after the imposition of sentence on March 2, 1993, the appeal is not timely perfected.  Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Guzman, and Sullivan.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).