Richard David MacK v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 29, 2018
Docket11-18-00245-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Richard David MacK v. State (Richard David MacK 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.

Bluebook
Richard David MacK v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Opinion filed November 29, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

Nos. 11-18-00242-CR, 11-18-00243-CR, 11-18-00244-CR, & 11-18-00245-CR __________

RICHARD DAVID MACK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 266th District Court Erath County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. CR 12376, CR 12377, CR 12378, & CR 12379

MEMORANDUM OPINION Richard David Mack, Appellant, filed an untimely pro se notice of appeal from his convictions for the offenses of capital murder, for which he was sentenced to confinement for life. We dismiss the appeals. The documents on file in these appeals indicate that Appellant’s sentences were imposed in 2006, and that his pro se notice of appeal was filed in the district clerk’s office on September 13, 2018. When the appeals were filed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that his notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that these appeals may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We requested that Appellant respond to our letter and show grounds to continue these appeals. Appellant has not filed a response showing any grounds upon which these appeals may proceed. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2, Appellant’s notice of appeal in each case was due to be filed within thirty days after the date his sentence was imposed in open court. A notice of appeal must be in writing and filed with the clerk of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). The documents on file in this court reflect that Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the trial court more than twelve years after his sentences were imposed. The notice of appeal was, therefore, untimely. Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Appellant has requested that this court appoint counsel for him in these appeals. We note that this court has no authority to appoint counsel and that, because the notice of appeal was untimely, we must dismiss the appeals. These appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

November 29, 2018 PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1 Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rodarte v. State
860 S.W.2d 108 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Slaton v. State
981 S.W.2d 208 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Olivo v. State
918 S.W.2d 519 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Richard David MacK v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-david-mack-v-state-texapp-2018.