In the Interest of H.D.H. and C.M.H.--Appeal from 411th District Court of Polk County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 9th District Court of Appeals » 2004 » In the Interest of H.D.H. and C.M.H.--Appeal from 411th District Court of Polk County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 09-03-00388-CV

Case Date: 12/30/2004

Plaintiff: Michael Smith, Lula Smith, Individually and as Next Friend of L. S., J. S., and J. S., minor childre

Defendant: Jack S. Latham, Eric A. Gardner, Swift Transportation Company, Inc., a/k/a Swift Transportation Cor

Preview:Joel Carrera v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 142nd
District Court of Midland County
/**/
11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Joel Carrera
Appellant
Vs. Nos. 11-04-00210-CR, 11-04-00211-CR, 11-04-00212-CR, & 11-04-00213-CR -- Appeals from Midland County
State of Texas
Appellee
The jury found Joel Carrera guilty in all four causes of the offense of delivery of cocaine. The trial court assessed
appellant s punishment in Cause Nos. 11-04-00210-CR and 11-04-00211-CR at confinement for 2 years in a state jail
facility. In Cause Nos. 11-04-00212-CR and 11-04-00213-CR, the trial court assessed appellant s punishment at
confinement for 10 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, but the court
suspended the 10-year sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for 10 years. We dismiss the appeals.
The sentence in each case was imposed on July 19, 2004. Appellant filed untimely motions for new trial on August 23,
2004. The notices of appeal were filed in the trial court on August 23, 2004. The notices of appeal were 5 days late
and, therefore, were not timely pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2. In the trial court in each case, appellant also filed a
request for permission to appeal, noting that his notices of appeal were not timely. Appellant did not timely file any
such request for an extension in the court of appeals. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3. When this court received the clerk s
records on November 12, 2004, we notified the parties that the notices of appeal appeared to be untimely and requested
that appellant respond within 15 days of our letter and provide this court with a reasonable explanation for the late
filing of the notices of appeal. In our letter, we notified appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. See TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(b). Appellant s counsel responded and explained that appellant had originally
informed counsel that he did not desire to appeal and that appellant belatedly notified counsel that he had changed his
mind.
Without timely notices of appeal, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208
(Tex.Cr.App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Cr.App.1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108
(Tex.Cr.App.1993); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96 (Tex. Cr.App.1988). The requests for permission to appeal that were
filed in the trial court were ineffective and cannot operate as Rule 26.3(b) motions for extension in this court. See
Moreno v. State, 954 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.App. - San Antonio 1997, no pet n); Jones v. State, 900 S.W.2d 421 (Tex.App. -
Texarkana 1995, no pet n).
Therefore, appellant s requests for an extension are overruled, and the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
December 23, 2004
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7734.html[8/20/2013 7:24:02 PM]

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7734.html[8/20/2013 7:24:02 PM]

Download 7734.pdf