From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Dec 4, 2002
89 S.W.3d 187 (Tex. App. 2002)

Summary

holding motion for new trial does not extend time for filing notice of appeal in cases in which defendant is appealing order deferring adjudication of guilt

Summary of this case from Martin v. State

Opinion

Nos. 05-02-00051- CR 05-02-00052-CR

Opinion issued September 30, 2002 Rehearing Overruled December 4, 2002

On Appeal from the 296th District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 296-81378-00; 296-81382-00

DISMISSED

Before Justices KINKEADE, BRIDGES, and FITZGERALD.


OPINION


Grant A. Murray pleaded no contest to two charges of arson. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 28.02 (Vernon Supp. 2002). The trial court found the evidence substantiated appellant's guilt but deferred a finding of guilt in both cases and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. The trial court also ordered appellant to pay restitution in the amounts of $39,000 and $722.

The State contends we lack jurisdiction over these appeals because appellant's notices of appeal were untimely. We agree. The record reflects appellant received deferred adjudication on October 12, 2001. Appellant filed a motion for new trial in cause number 05-02-00051-CR on November 1, 2001, and in cause number 05-02-00052-CR on November 2, 2001. Appellant filed his notices of appeal on January 4, 2002. A motion for new trial is not an available remedy for a defendant who receives deferred adjudication. See Donovan v. State, 68 S.W.3d 633, 636 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Accordingly, we conclude a motion for new trial is also ineffective to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal in a case in which the defendant has received deferred adjudication. See Garcia v. State, 29 S.W.3d 899, 901 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

Because appellant's January 4, 2002 notices of appeal were filed more than thirty days after October 12, 2001, we have no jurisdiction over these appeals. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) (per curiam); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Boyd v. State, 971 S.W.2d 603, 606 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.). Thus, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.


Summaries of

Murray v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Dec 4, 2002
89 S.W.3d 187 (Tex. App. 2002)

holding motion for new trial does not extend time for filing notice of appeal in cases in which defendant is appealing order deferring adjudication of guilt

Summary of this case from Martin v. State

holding defendant's notice of appeal was untimely because a motion for new trial is ineffective to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal in a case in which the defendant receives deferred adjudication

Summary of this case from Sanchez v. State

holding notice of appeal untimely because the motion for new trial was ineffective to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal in a case in which the defendant received deferred adjudication

Summary of this case from Case v. State
Case details for

Murray v. State

Case Details

Full title:GRANT A. MURRAY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Dec 4, 2002

Citations

89 S.W.3d 187 (Tex. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Welsh v. State

This Court has applied Donovan to hold that a motion for new trial is not effective to extend the time for…

Thacker v. State

Therefore, it is not effective to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal in a case in which the…