Opinion
No. 01-03-00433-CR
Opinion issued July 31, 2003 Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 338th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 923385
Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK, and Justices ALCALA and HIGLEY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Theodomus Young, was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, and sentenced to confinement for five years. He was sentenced on March 21, 2003. No motion for new trial was filed. The deadline for filing notice of appeal was therefore Monday, April 21, 2003, because the thirtieth day after sentencing fell on a weekend. Tex.R.App.P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a)(1). Appellant's pro se notice of appeal was deposited in the mail on April 23, 2003, according to the postmark on the copy of the envelope included in the clerk's record. Because the notice of appeal was mailed after the filing deadline, it did not comply with Rule 9.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the "mailbox rule." SeeTex.R.App.P. 9.2(b). Although the notice of appeal was filed within the 15-day time period for filing a motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal, no such motion for extension of time was filed. SeeTex.R.App.P. 26.3. The Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely-filed notice of appeal or motion for extension of time, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Kessinger v. State, 26 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref'd). Specifically, the court declined to adopt the more liberal approach taken by the Texas Supreme Court inVerburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522-25; Kessinger, 26 S.W.3d at 726. Because no motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was filed in this case, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It is so ORDERED.