Kevin Goodwin v. State ( 2002 )

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-02-00140-CR ______________________________



KEVIN GOODWIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 102nd Judicial District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 01-F-466-102

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ. Opinion by Justice Ross

O P I N I O N

Kevin Goodwin appeals his conviction for murder and his sentence of ninety-nine years' imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine. The trial court pronounced sentence May 24, 2002, making Goodwin's notice of appeal due by June 24, 2002, or if Goodwin filed a timely motion for new trial, by August 22, 2002. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a); see also Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a) (if last day of period is Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, period extended to end of next day not Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday).

Goodwin filed his notice of appeal August 2, 2002. He did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, his notice of appeal is untimely.

A court of appeals may extend the time for filing the notice of appeal if, within fifteen days of the time for filing the notice of appeal, a party files (1) a notice of appeal in the trial court, and (2) a motion to extend time in the court of appeals. On August 6, 2002, Goodwin filed a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. However, neither his motion to extend nor his notice of appeal was filed within fifteen days of the time for filing his notice of appeal. Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction over the appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). ⁽¹⁾ The motion to extend is overruled.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Donald R. Ross

Justice

Date Submitted: August 8, 2002

Date Decided: August 9, 2002

Do Not Publish

1. In Olivo, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted the denial of a meaningful appeal because of ineffective assistance of counsel is a proper ground for habeas corpus relief. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2002).

Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>

                                                         In The

                                                Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                                                ______________________________

                                                             No. 06-10-00118-CV

                                                ______________________________

                                                   IN RE:  MICHAEL KENNEDY

                                                     Original Mandamus Proceeding

                                          Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

                                              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

                                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Michael Kennedy filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Twelfth Court of Appeals.  By order of the Texas Supreme Court, that petition has been transferred to this Court for decision. 

            In his petition, he asks the court to issue an order directing a trial court clerk and a deputy clerk of the Twelfth Court of Appeals to file his notices of appeal and to cease “denying and refusing to file petitions and pleadings” in a civil lawsuit which was evidently appealed to that court. 

            As best as we can glean from his petition, he believes a series of motions were rejected by the Tyler deputy clerk that he mailed to the court in relation to a specified cause number:  another mandamus that he had filed with that court (cause number 12-10-00297-CV).  He has attached copies of documents, some of which bear dates of receipt by the Twelfth Court of Appeals, to the present petition.  There are three copies of a notice of appeal, a motion stating that other individuals had admitted a crime of which Kennedy was accused, a motion to issue a capias to release him because the judge should not allow him to be incarcerated for sixty-two years, a motion showing he had requested a competence hearing related to some prior plea, and a motion “showing court that Michael Kennedy anger, mad, hateress [sic] and upset and Counsel . . . could get injury around Michael Kennedy,” and a “motion objections for trial court to provide Michael Kennedy all court reporter’s records in no. 12-10-00297-CR” because he would represent himself at “resentence.”  Finally, he includes a motion to order a new trial on his conviction.

            This Court has, by statute, limited mandamus jurisdiction.  We have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a “judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004).  As we are sitting in the place of the Twelfth Court of Appeals, our jurisdiction in this instance provides us with authority to issue mandamus to a judge of a district or county court within the territorial bounds of the Twelfth Appellate District. 

            In this instance, no relief has been sought against any individual over whom we have general mandamus authority.  Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to provide the relief requested.

            We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

Date Submitted:          November 15, 2010

Date Decided:             November 16, 2010