From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Griffith v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Aug 10, 2017
NO. 01-17-00380-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 10, 2017)

Opinion

NO. 01-17-00380-CR NO. 01-17-00381-CR NO. 01-17-00382-CR

08-10-2017

SHEREE ROBIN GRIFFITH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 1412182 , 1418845, & 1537954

Appellate cause number 01-17-00380-CR; trial court cause number 1412182. Appellate cause number 01-17-00381-CR; trial court cause number 1418845. Appellate cause number 01-17-00382-CR; trial court cause number 1537954.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Sheree Robin Griffith, pleaded guilty to the state-jail felony offense of forgery of a commercial instrument in the underlying trial court cause number 1412182. Appellant also pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony offense of fraudulent use/possession of identifying information of between 10-49 items in the related trial court cause number 1418845. In 2014, in accordance with the terms of appellant's plea bargains with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for a period of four years, and ordered her to complete the S.T.A.R. drug court program.

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.21(b), (d) (West 2015).

In 2017, the State moved to adjudicate appellant's guilt in both cases and she entered a plea of true to the allegations in the motion. On March 22, 2017, appellant pleaded guilty to a new state-jail felony offense of theft of less than $2,500, but with two or more prior convictions, in the related trial court cause number 1537954. In accordance with the terms of her plea bargains with the State, the trial court adjudicated appellant's guilt and assessed her punishment at six years' confinement in trial court cause numbers 1412182 and 1418845 on March 22, 2017. On that same date, the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed her punishment at four years' confinement in trial court cause number 1537954, with all three sentences to run concurrently with each other. Appellant did not file her combined pro se notice of appeal until May 5, 2017. We dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.

A criminal defendant's notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the sentence is imposed, or within ninety days after the sentence is imposed if the defendant has timely filed a motion for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). The time for filing a notice of appeal may be extended if, within fifteen days of the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, an appellant files both a notice of appeal and a motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See id. 26.3; Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 606 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) ("The limited, 15-day extended time period applies to both the notice and the motion for extension; both must be filed within the 15-day time period."). A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. See 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). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210.

Here, the trial court signed appellant's judgments of conviction in each case on March 22, 2017, and imposed the concurrent sentences on that date. Appellant did not timely file a motion for new trial, making her notice of appeal due by April 21, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant's notice of appeal was not filed until May 5, 2017, forty-four days after the sentence was imposed, and while this was within the fifteen-day grace period, she did not timely file a motion for extension of time. See id. 26.3; Douglas, 987 S.W.2d at 606. Thus, under these circumstances, we can take no action other than to dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 526.

Moreover, even if appellant had timely appealed, these appeals must be dismissed because the trial court's certifications, in each case, stated that these were plea-bargained cases and that she had no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The clerk's record, filed in this Court on June 1, 2017, in each case, supports the trial court's certifications. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Massengale, and Lloyd. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).


Summaries of

Griffith v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Aug 10, 2017
NO. 01-17-00380-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 10, 2017)
Case details for

Griffith v. State

Case Details

Full title:SHEREE ROBIN GRIFFITH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Date published: Aug 10, 2017

Citations

NO. 01-17-00380-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 10, 2017)