Gustavo Flores v. State ( 2004 )

Opinion issued November 18, 2004  

  In The  

Court of Appeals  

For The  

First District of Texas  

____________

NOS. 01-04-01073-CR

          01-04-01074-CR

____________

GUSTAVO FLORES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 997619 and 928587

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

               We lack jurisdiction to hear these appeals. The trial court sentenced appellant, Gustavo Flores, and signed its final judgments in these cases on August 19, 2004. Flores did not file a motion for new trial, and therefore the deadline for filing notice of appeal was Monday, September 20, 2004, because the thirtieth day after sentencing fell on a weekend. Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a)(1).

               Flores deposited his notices of appeal in the mail on September 27, 2004, according to the postmark on the envelope included in the clerk’s records. Because the notices of appeal were mailed seven days after the filing deadline, they did not comply with Rule 9.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the “mailbox rule.” See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b). Although the notices of appeal were mailed 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. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.

               An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction to hear the case. 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); Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

               We therefore dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.  

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Keyes and Alcala.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).