Opinion

Stephanie Anne Shill v. State

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
May 3, 2012
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 42.2%

The opinion

Opinion issued May 3, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-06-01046-CR

____________

STEPHANIE ANNE SHILL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Fort Bend

County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 06-CCR-124814

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This

is an appeal from the county court at law’s action in dismissing appellant’s

attempted appeal from the municipal court for a trial de novo and issuing

a writ of procedendo 1 to the municipal court. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the

appeal.

On

June 14, 2006, appellant, Stephanie Shill, pleaded no contest to a

driving-without-insurance citation in the Municipal Court of Sugar Land, Fort

Bend County, Texas. The trial court

found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at a $250 fine. Appellant posted a $250 appeal bond, which

the municipal court declined to approve because it did not comply with Tex. Code Crim. Proc . art. 45.0425

(Vernon 2006). Another appeal bond in

the amount of $500 was later filed. Appellant also filed a notice of appeal

seeking trial de novo, which was docketed in the County Court at Law Number

Two.

The

State moved for a writ of procedendo, arguing that the appeal bond “failed to

meet the statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal, therefore, the appeal

is defective.” On September 18, 2006,

the county court at law granted the State’s motion, dismissed the attempted

appeal for trial de novo, and issued a writ of procedendo to the municipal

court. It is this order that gives rise

to the present appeal.

However,

the county court at law signed the order on September 18, 2006. Appellant did not file a motion for new

trial, and therefore the deadline for filing a notice of appeal was October 18,

2006, 30 days the trial court’s order. See

Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).

Appellant also filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of

appeal, which would have extended her period for filing a notice of appeal for

an additional 15 days, or until November 2, 2006. See Tex.

R. App. P. 26.3.

Appellant

filed her notice of appeal on November 7, 2006, five days after the

deadline. Even if we were to assume that

the notice of appeal was deposited in the mail on November 3, 2006—the date

upon which it was signed and the date appearing on its certificate of service—it

would nonetheless be one day late. A notice of appeal mailed after the filing

deadline does 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.).

To

the extent that appellant claims she did not have notice of the trial court’s

judgment, we note that Rule 4.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

which provides for additional time when a party has no notice of an order or

judgment, applies only to civil cases. See

Tex. R. App. P. 4.2.

We grant the State’s motion and dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It

is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice

Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.

Do not publish. Tex.

R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1 This writ

is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 1367 (4th Edition 1968) as “a writ by

which a cause which has been removed from an inferior to a superior court by

certiorari or otherwise is sent down to the same court, to be proceeded in

there, where it appears to the superior court that it was removed on

insufficient grounds.”

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.