From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston, Fourteenth District
May 26, 1983
654 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. App. 1983)

Opinion

No. B14-81-740CR.

May 26, 1983.

Appeal from the District Court, Harris County, Jon Hughes, J.

Ray Epps, Houston, for appellant.

James C. Brough, Robert Burdette, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, for appellee.

Before PAUL PRESSLER, ROBERTSON and CANNON, JJ.


Appellant attempts to appeal his conviction for murder and punishment of 99 years confinement. Due to the lack of this court's jurisdiction to consider his appeal, we dismiss it.

Appellant was found guilty and sentenced on September 23, 1981, and the judgment and sentence was signed on September 25, 1981. He filed no motion for new trial or arrest of judgment after that time. The only notice of appeal in the record was given on October 23, 1981. Tex Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 44.08(b) (Vernon Supp. 1982-1983) provides:

Notice of appeal shall be filed within 15 days after overruling of the motion or amended motion for new trial and if there be no motion or amended motion for new trial, then 15 days after sentencing.

Even computing from the date the judgment and sentence was signed, the last date appellant could have given notice of appeal was October 10, 1981. Because timely notice of appeal has not been given, we have no jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Appellant's appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.


Summaries of

Martin v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston, Fourteenth District
May 26, 1983
654 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. App. 1983)
Case details for

Martin v. State

Case Details

Full title:Carl Douglas MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston, Fourteenth District

Date published: May 26, 1983

Citations

654 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. App. 1983)

Citing Cases

Shute v. State

In his brief, appellant concedes he knew the requisites of the Rules of Appellate Procedure but held mistaken…

Jones v. State

In Shute, the court was more concerned with whether the notice was timely, than with the form of the notice.…