In Re Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, et al--Appeal from 58th District Court of Jefferson County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 09-01-00479-CV

Case Date: 11/16/2001

Plaintiff: Jimmy Earl Parr

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County

Preview:Jimmy Earl Parr v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
54th District Court of McLennan County
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-05-00011-CR
Jimmy Earl Parr,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court # 2003-667-C
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Following a jury verdict, the trial court imposed Jimmy Earl Parr s 17-year sentence for robbery on December 1, 2004.
Parr did not file a motion for new trial and filed his notice of appeal on January 11, 2005, more than thirty days after
imposition of sentence. Thus, Parr s notice of appeal is untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Parr filed a motion
for extension of time to file the notice of appeal on February 17, 2005, more than thirty days after the notice of appeal.
Thus, Parr s motion for extension is untimely. Id. 26.3.
Parr cites Bayless v. State for the proposition that he should be permitted to file an amended notice of appeal which
cures the previously untimely notice of appeal. 91 S.W.3d 801, 805-06 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see also Tex. R. App.
P. 25.2(f) (amended notice of appeal may be filed at any time before the appealing party s brief is filed without leave
of court).
However, Bayless itself answers Parr s assertion. The Court held, Thus, the Rules are clear; if a defendant files a
timely general notice of appeal, amendments to the notice can be made any time prior to the filing of the defendant s
brief. Bayless, 91 S.W.3d at 806 (emphasis added). Parr s initial notice of appeal was untimely. Thus, he cannot amend
the notice to cure this jurisdictional defect. Cf. id.; see also Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 359 (Tex. Crim. App.
1998) (Rule 2(b) may not be used to enlarge appellate time limits ).
Because Parr s notice of appeal and his motion for extension are both untimely, the motion is denied, and the appeal is
dismissed. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
PER CURIAM
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6317.html[8/20/2013 7:20:36 PM]

Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed March 23, 2005
Do not publish
[CR25]
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6317.html[8/20/2013 7:20:36 PM]

Download 6317.pdf