CITY OF EDINBURG v. VERONICA VASQUEZ, AS NEXT FRIEND OF SAMANTHA VASQUEZ, A MINOR CHILD--Appeal from 398th District Court of Hidalgo County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 13th District Court of Appeals » 2005 » CITY OF EDINBURG v. VERONICA VASQUEZ, AS NEXT FRIEND OF SAMANTHA VASQUEZ, A MINOR CHILD--Appeal from 398th District Court of Hidalgo County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 13-05-00173-CV

Case Date: 12/08/2005

Plaintiff: CITY OF EDINBURG

Defendant: VERONICA VASQUEZ, AS NEXT FRIEND OF SAMANTHA VASQUEZ, A MINOR CHILD--Appeal from 398th District Cou

Preview:Billy Dale Bond v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
198th Judicial District Court of Kerr County
No. 04-02-00170-CR
Billy BOND,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas
Trial Court No. B96-229
Honorable Emil Karl Prohl, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 27, 2002
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
The trial court imposed sentence on October 9, 2001, and appellant timely filed a motion for new trial. Thus, a notice
of appeal was due January 7, 2002, or a notice, together with a motion for extension of time to file, were due fifteen
days later on January 22, 2002. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2), 26.3. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a motion for
extension of time in the trial court on February 15, 2002. Because the failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives
this court of jurisdiction, see State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), we ordered appellant to show
cause why we should not dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellant's counsel filed a response in which she states the notice of appeal and motion for extension of time were
untimely because she did not receive notice that the trial court signed an order denying her client's motion for new
trial. Accordingly, she "continued to believe that the Motion for New Trial had not yet been ruled on, giving [her
client] until 15 days after the Motion for New Trial would have been overruled by operation of law within which to
file [her client's] Notice of Appeal." Counsel urges us to allow a late notice of appeal under these circumstances
pursuant to "the doctrine or fundamental fairness."
Neither Bond's notice of appeal nor his motion for extension of time to file were filed within the fifteen day grace
period provided by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. This court does not have
authority to allow a late notice of appeal under these circumstances. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App.
1996). Moreover, counsel's failure to receive notice that the motion for new trial was overruled had no effect on the
deadline for filing a notice of appeal because the date a motion for new trial is overruled is irrelevant to calculating
when a notice of appeal is due. A notice of appeal in a criminal case "must be filed within 30 days after the day
sentence is imposed or suspended in open court" or "within 90 days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in
open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial." Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).
Appellant has failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this court and we therefore dismiss the appeal and the motion for
extension of time to file for lack of jurisdiction. See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Olivo v.
State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/14842.html[8/20/2013 7:35:15 PM]

PER CURIAM
Do not publish
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/14842.html[8/20/2013 7:35:15 PM]

Download 14842.pdf