requiring both notice of appeal and motion for extension to be filed within 15 days of original due date for notice of appeal
How later courts described this case
- requiring both notice of appeal and motion for extension to be filed within 15 days of original due date for notice of appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Opinion issued January 14, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00889-CR
NO. 01-13-00890-CR
———————————
MARLIN RAY MCDOWELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1366053, 1366054
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Marlin Ray McDowell, pleaded guilty, without an agreed
recommendation, to the felony offense of robbery. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 29.02 (West 2011). On January 28, 2013, the trial court found appellant guilty
and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ confinement. On September 30, 2013,
appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.
Appellant did not file a motion for new trial or a motion for extension of
time to file his notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2), 26.3(b); Olivo v.
State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (requiring both notice of
appeal and motion for extension to be filed within 15 days of original due date for
notice of appeal). Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on or before
February 27, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1).
A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 26 is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. See Slaton
v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The Court of Criminal
Appeals has expressly held that without a timely filed notice of appeal we cannot
exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; see also
Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Because appellant’s September 30, 2013 notice of
appeal was untimely, we have no basis for jurisdiction over this appeal. See
Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all
pending motions as moot.
2
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3