Opinion
Nos. 05-09-00549-CR, 05-09-00550-CR
Opinion Filed June 23, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F06-62165-U, F06-62166-U.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, LANG, and FILLMORE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
August in Sosa Mora was convicted of possession of heroin in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams and possession of cocaine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. In each case, the trial court sentenced appellant to fifteen years' imprisonment. Punishment was imposed in open court on March 13, 2009, and no timely motion for new trial was filed. Therefore, appellant's notices of appeal were due by Monday, April 13, 2009. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a). Appellant's pro se notices of appeal are file-stamped April 21, 2009. The Court has before it the State's motion to dismiss the appeals, in which the State asserts we have no jurisdiction because appellant's notices of appeal were untimely. Appellant did not respond to the motion to dismiss. Based on the record before us, we agree we have no jurisdiction over the appeals. The envelope in which appellant's pro se notices of appeal were mailed is postmarked April 14, 2009, one date late. To obtain the benefit of the mailbox rule, appellant's notices of appeal had to be deposited in the mail on or before April 13, 2009. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(1)(C). Although appellant's pro se notices of appeal have the date "4-13-09" written at the top, appellant has not provided any proof that the notices of appeal were deposited in the mail on or before April 13, 2009. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b)(2) (proof of mailing). Moreover, although appellant's April 21, 2009 notices of appeal were filed within the fifteen-day period provided by rule of appellate procedure 26.3(a), appellant did not file an extension motion in this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3(b). To obtain the benefit of rule 26.3, appellant had to file both the notices of appeal and an extension motion within the fifteen-day period provided by the rule. 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, 605-06 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.). Because nothing shows appellant timely mailed his notices of appeal and appellant did not file an extension motion as required by rule 26.3(b), we conclude we have no jurisdiction over the appeals. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 525; Boyd, 971 S.W.2d at 605-06. We grant the State's motion to dismiss the appeals. We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.