Roman Vasquez v. State
This text of Roman Vasquez v. State (Roman Vasquez 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.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-16-00106-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________
ROMAN VASQUEZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Roman Vasquez, attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for
burglary of a building. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed
notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the
merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
The trial court imposed sentence in this matter on March 5, 1997. Appellant filed
his notice of appeal on January 11, 2016. On February 18, 2016, the Clerk of this Court
notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected and that the
appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date
of receipt of the Court’s directive. Appellant filed a response requesting additional time
to cure the defect. The Court granted appellant’s request, extending the time to cure the
defect until March 23, 2016. Appellant has not otherwise filed a response to the Court’s
directive.
Unless a motion for new trial has been timely filed, a notice of appeal must be filed
within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after
the day the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Where a
timely motion for new trial has been filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety
days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. See id. 26.2(a)(2).
The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the
deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying
with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3.
Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed more than eighteen years after sentence was
imposed, was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See
Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing
2 a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals;
however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.); see also
Ex parte Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. Any pending
motions are likewise DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 21st day of April, 2016.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Roman Vasquez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roman-vasquez-v-state-texapp-2016.