Opinion
NO. 01-16-00240-CRNO. 01-16-00241-CR
10-25-2016
GERARDO PARTIDA, JR. Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 866257 and 870282
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Gerardo Partida, Jr., without agreed punishment recommendations from the State, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, namely, codeine weighing more than 200 grams but less than 400 grams in trial court cause number 866257, and the felony offense of possession with an intent to deliver a controlled substance, namely, cocaine weighing more than four grams but less than 200 grams in trial court cause number 870282. In each case, the trial court deferred an adjudication of appellant's guilt and placed him on community supervision for a period of eight years. After the State moved to adjudicate guilt, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision and adjudicated him guilty of both offenses. The trial court assessed appellant's punishment at confinement for ten years for the offense of possession of a controlled substance and twenty years for the offense of possession with an intent to deliver a controlled substance, with the sentences to run concurrently.
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN § 481.118(a), (d) (West 2010).
See id. § 481.112(a), (d). --------
In February 2016, appellant filed, in each case, a pro se "Motion Requesting a Due Process Review on Concurrent Sentence Reductions on Illegal Judgements Issued." The trial court denied the motions, and appellant filed pro se notices of appeal. We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.
The right to appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily created right. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006); Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Generally, a criminal defendant may appeal only from a final judgment. State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Absent any statutory authority for an appeal, we do not have jurisdiction over an appeal from the denial of appellant's motion requesting a due process review. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (citing Staley v. State, 233 S.W3d 337, 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)).
Additionally, to the extent that appellant seeks to appeal the judgments of conviction, we do not have jurisdiction over the appeals. We cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal without a timely filed notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A defendant's notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days after the date sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or within ninety days after that date if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a); see Bayless, 91 S.W.3d at 805; Lair v. State, 321 S.W.3d 158, 159 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd). Here, the trial court imposed the sentences and signed the judgments adjudicating guilt on November 19, 2003. The clerk's record filed in this Court does not reflect that appellant filed a motion for new trial. And even if appellant's motions for a due process review of his sentences were considered motions for new trial, the motions were untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4(a). Because timely motions for new trial were not filed, appellant's notices of appeal were due to be filed no later than December 19, 2003. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. Appellant's notices of appeal, filed on March 14, 2016, were untimely.
Accordingly, we dismiss the 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 Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).