Opinion
No. 11-15-00328-CR
01-14-2016
SCOTT CROW, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 244th District Court Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C-45,015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Scott Crow, Appellant, has filed an untimely pro se notice of appeal from a conviction for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated. We dismiss the appeal.
The documents on file in this case indicate that Appellant's sentence was imposed on June 10, 2015, and that his notice of appeal was filed in the district clerk's office on December 21, 2015. When the appeal was filed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We also noted that the trial court had certified this was a plea-bargain case and that Appellant had waived his right of appeal. We requested that Appellant respond to our letter and show grounds to continue. Appellant has filed a response but has not shown grounds upon which this appeal may continue.
Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a), a notice of appeal is due to be filed either (1) within thirty days after the date that sentence is imposed in open court or (2) if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial, within ninety days after the date that sentence is imposed in open court. A notice of appeal must be in writing and filed with the clerk of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). The documents on file in this court reflect that Appellant's notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the trial court 194 days after sentence was imposed. The notice of appeal was, therefore, untimely.
Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Neither a notice of appeal nor a motion for extension were filed within the fifteen-day period permitted by TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.
Moreover, the trial court's certification reflects that Appellant has no right of appeal and also that he waived his right of appeal. Thus, even if Appellant had timely perfected an appeal, the appeal would have been prohibited by TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2, which provides that an appellate court must dismiss an appeal without further action when there is no certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM January 14, 2016 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.