Ronald Eugene Williams v. State ( 2016 )

Opinion issued December 20, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-16-00663-CR
———————————
RONALD EUGENE WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 183rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1408771
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Ronald Eugene Williams, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of
possession of a controlled substance1 and pleaded true to the allegations in two state
1
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a) (West 2010).
jail felony enhancement paragraphs.2 The trial court found appellant guilty, found
the enhancements true, and, in accordance with the terms of appellant’s plea bargain
agreement with the State, sentenced appellant to two years in prison. Appellant filed
a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.
Appellant did not file a motion for new trial or a motion for extension of time
to file his notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2), 26.3(b); Olivo v. State,
918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (requiring both notice of appeal and
motion for extension to be filed within 15 days of original due date for notice of
appeal). Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on or before February 5,
2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1).
A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential
to vest this court with jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1998). The court of criminal appeals has expressly held that without a
timely filed notice of appeal we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See
Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; see also Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Because appellant’s
July 28, 2016 notice of appeal was untimely,3 we have no basis for jurisdiction over
this appeal. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523.
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(a) (West Supp. 2016).
3
The record contains no envelope or postmark date for appellant’s notice of appeal,
which contains no certificate of service. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2(b), 26.2(a), 26.3;
Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Further, appellant has
2
Further, in a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that
were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial
court’s permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006);
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing
that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. TEX.
R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id.
The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the
defendant has no right of appeal. See id. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial
court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See
Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals,
while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is
permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without
further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”). We note that the record
reflects that on August 13, 2014, the Harris County District Attorney informed
provided no evidence to show that he delivered his notice of appeal to jail officials
by February 5, 2014, which was 904 days prior to the date the notice of appeal was
file-stamped. See Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338, 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)
(“We hold that the pleadings of pro se inmates shall be deemed filed at the time they
are delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk.”).
3
appellant that he was “convicted in error.” Appellant may wish to pursue this
contention through a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to article 11.07. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015).
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending
motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Bland.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4