Fernando Valenzuela v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 180th District Court of Harris County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 01-05-00934-CR

Case Date: 12/01/2005

Plaintiff: Warner, Grady Lewis

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 21st District Court of Burleson County

Preview:Fernando Valenzuela v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 180th District Court of Harris County
/**/ Opinion issued December 1, 2005

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________

NO. 01-05-00934-CR ____________

FERNANDO VALENZUELA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1026690

MEMORANDUM OPINION We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The trial court sentenced appellant, Fernando Valenzuela, and signed a final judgment in this case on July 27, 2005. Valenzuela filed an untimely motion for new trial on September 15, 2005. A motion for new trial that is filed more than 30 days after sentencing does not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. Mendez v. State, 914 S.W.2d 579, 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Valenzuela did not file a timely motion for new

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/82431.html[8/20/2013 8:39:48 PM]

trial, and therefore the deadline for filing a notice of appeal was August 26, 2005, 30 days after sentencing. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Valenzuela filed a pro se notice of appeal on September 15, 2005, 20 days after the deadline. Notice of appeal was deposited in the mail on September 14, 2005, according to the postmark on the copy of the envelope included in the clerk s record. Because the notice of appeal was mailed after the filing deadline, it did not comply with Rule 9.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the mailbox rule. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b) An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction to hear the case. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot. It is so ORDERED. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Hanks. Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/82431.html[8/20/2013 8:39:48 PM]

Download 82431.pdf