From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duran v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Feb 19, 2009
No. 2-08-378-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 19, 2009)

Opinion

No. 2-08-378-CR

Delivered: February 19, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Appealed from the 211th District Court of Denton County.

PANEL: MEIER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


On September 12, 2008, the trial court denied Appellant David Duran's "Chapter 64 C.Cr.P. Motion for Discovery." Duran's notice of appeal from this order was due by October 13, 2008, but was not filed until October 14, 2008. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). On December 30, 2008, we notified Duran's court-appointed counsel of the apparent untimeliness of the appeal; requested that he advise whether the notice of appeal was properly addressed, stamped, and mailed by United States Postal Service to the proper trial court clerk on or before October 13, 2008; and stated that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if the court determined that the appeal was not timely perfected. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1), (2). Duran's court-appointed counsel responded to our letter, but the response contains no proof that the notice of appeal was deposited with the United States Postal Service on or before October 13, 2008. Moreover, Duran did not file a motion for extension of time stating a reasonable explanation for the untimely notice of appeal within fifteen days of the last day for filing so as to provide another basis for appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3(b); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (holding that when notice of appeal is filed within fifteen-day period but no timely motion for extension of time is filed, appellate court lacks jurisdiction). Because Duran's notice of appeal was untimely, we have no basis for jurisdiction over the appeal. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522-23. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

Under rule of appellate procedure 9.2(b), a notice of appeal is timely only if it was deposited with the United States Postal Service on or before the last day for filing and received by the trial court within ten days after the filing deadline. Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1). Our December 30, 2008 letter also listed the items that we would accept as evidence of proof of mailing.


Summaries of

Duran v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Feb 19, 2009
No. 2-08-378-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 19, 2009)
Case details for

Duran v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAVID DURAN, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

Date published: Feb 19, 2009

Citations

No. 2-08-378-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 19, 2009)

Citing Cases

Duran v. State

We dismissed the appeal of the first DNA motion as untimely, and we affirmed the trial court's denial of his…

Duran v. State

We dismissed the appeal of the first motion as untimely, and we affirmed the trial court's denial of his…