Robert Buchanan AKA Robert Crayton v. the State of Texas
This text of Robert Buchanan AKA Robert Crayton v. the State of Texas (Robert Buchanan AKA Robert Crayton v. the State of Texas) 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
In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-24-00066-CR
ROBERT BUCHANAN AKA ROBERT CRAYTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 115th District Court Upshur County, Texas Trial Court No. 19,314
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Buchanan, also know as Robert Crayton, filed an untimely notice of appeal from
his conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and the resulting sentence of life in
prison.1 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The judgment of conviction in this matter indicates that the trial court imposed
Buchanan’s sentence on December 8, 2022, and Buchanan did not file a motion for new trial. As
a result, Buchanan’s notice of appeal was due on or before January 9, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P.
26.2(a)(1). Buchanan’s notice of appeal was filed on April 17, 2024, well beyond the January 9,
2023, deadline. Consequently, Buchanan’s attempt to appeal his conviction in this matter was
untimely.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed
notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d
519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1998) (per curiam).
We notified Buchanan by letter that his notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that
the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We gave Buchanan ten days to
respond to our letter and to demonstrate how we had jurisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding
the noted defect. While Buchanan responded, through appointed counsel, to our jurisdictional
defect letter, his response did not demonstrate how this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal.
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (Supp.). 2 Because Buchanan did not timely perfect his appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice
Date Submitted: May 10, 2024 Date Decided: May 13, 2024
Do Not Publish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
Robert Buchanan AKA Robert Crayton v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-buchanan-aka-robert-crayton-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.