Sixto Monterrubio v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 28, 2005
Docket13-05-00213-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Sixto Monterrubio v. State (Sixto Monterrubio 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
Sixto Monterrubio v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion



NUMBER 13-05-213-CR


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________


SIXTO MONTERRUBIO,                                                     Appellant,


v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                      Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________


On appeal from the 138th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam


         Appellant, SIXTO MONTERRUBIO, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order denying DNA testing entered by the 138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. The order from which this appeal is taken was signed on February 18, 2005. No timely motion for new trial was filed. The notice of appeal was due to be filed on March 21, 2005, but was not filed until March 24, 2005. Said notice of appeal is untimely filed.

         Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 provides that the court of appeals may grant an extension of time for filing notice of appeal if such notice is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed and within the same period a motion is filed in the court of appeals reasonably explaining the need for such extension. Appellant failed to file his notice of appeal and a motion requesting an extension of time within such period.

         The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to timely perfect his appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

                                                               PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 28th day of April, 2005.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sixto Monterrubio v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sixto-monterrubio-v-state-texapp-2005.