Vernice Smith v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Vernice Smith v. State

DecidedAugust 19, 2004

Docket13-04-00315-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Vernice Smith v. State (Vernice Smith 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

Vernice Smith v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-04-315-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________

VERNICE SMITH, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 130th District Court

of Matagorda County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, VERNICE SMITH, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 130th District Court of Matagorda County, Texas. Sentence in this cause was imposed on April 29, 2004. No timely motion for new trial was filed. The notice of appeal was due to be filed on June 1, 2004, but was not filed until June 2, 2004. 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Do not publish.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 19^th day of August, 2004.

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

NUMBER 13-04-315-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________

VERNICE SMITH, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 130th District Court

of Matagorda County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Castillo

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, VERNICE SMITH, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 130th District Court of Matagorda County, Texas. Sentence in this cause was imposed on April 29, 2004. No timely motion for new trial was filed. The notice of appeal was due to be filed on June 1, 2004, but was not filed until June 2, 2004. 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 19^th day of August, 2004.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vernice Smith v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vernice-smith-v-state-texapp-2004.