Michael Scott Baughman v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                     In The
    Court of Appeals
    Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
    No. 06-13-00197-CR
    MICHAEL SCOTT BAUGHMAN, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 5th District Court
    Cass County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2013-F-00091
    Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
    Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Michael Scott Baughman attempts to appeal from a judgment adjudicating him guilty of
    retaliation and sentencing him to ten years’ confinement. Baughman’s sentence was imposed July 3,
    2013. His motion for new trial was filed August 5, 2013, and his notice of appeal was filed
    September 5, 2013. The issue before us is whether Baughman timely filed his notice of appeal. We
    conclude that he did not and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
    A timely-filed notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State,
    
    918 S.W.2d 519
    , 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Rule 26.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
    Procedure prescribes the time period in which a notice of appeal must be filed to perfect an appeal in
    a criminal case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). A criminal defendant’s notice of appeal is timely if
    filed within thirty days after the date sentence is imposed or suspended or within ninety days after
    sentencing if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. Id.; Olivo, 
    918 S.W.2d at 522
    .
    In this case, Baughman’s motion for new trial was filed thirty-four days after the date
    sentence was imposed, making it untimely. As a result, Baughman did not trigger the ninety-day
    filing period that accompanies a timely-filed motion for new trial, and his notice of appeal was due
    within thirty days of the date sentence was imposed. Since Baughman’s notice of appeal was not
    filed within this thirty-day window, it was untimely, and we are without jurisdiction to consider the
    appeal.
    2
    Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
    Josh R. Morriss, III
    Chief Justice
    Date Submitted:      November 13, 2013
    Date Decided:        November 14, 2013
    Do Not Publish
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-13-00197-CR

Filed Date: 11/14/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015