Terry Blankenship v. Brad Livingston ( 2013 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00013-CV
TERRY BLANKENSHIP, APPELLANT
V.
BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 320th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 98395-D, Honorable Don R. Emerson, Presiding
December 17, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Terry Blankenship (Blankenship) appeals from a judgment dismissing his suit
against Brad Livingston, et. al. (collectively referred to as Livingston). Through a single
issue, Blankenship complains that he has been denied early release and remains
incarcerated past his mandatory release date in violation of the state and federal
constitutions. We dismiss the appeal.
Blankenship appeals an order dismissing his suit that was entered on August 16,
2012. On January 14, 2013, Blankenship filed his notice of appeal. Because the notice
appeared to be late, we afforded Blankenship opportunity to explain why his notice was
untimely and why we had jurisdiction over the appeal. His response was to be filed no
later than December 2, 2013. To date no response has been filed.
To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the sentence
is imposed or suspended in open court or within ninety days after that date if a motion
for new trial is filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Even if a motion for new trial had been
filed, the latest Blankenship had to file his notice was November 14, 2012, he filed his
notice on January 14, 2013. Thus, it was late.
A timely filed notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction.
Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). If it is untimely, we can
take no action other than to dismiss the proceeding. Id. at 523. Appellant's notice being
untimely filed, we have no jurisdiction over the matter and dismiss the appeal.
Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
Per Curiam
2