Whiteford Robinson v. State ( 2006 )

Opinion filed December 14, 2006

Opinion filed December 14, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                     Nos. 11-06-00325-CR, 11-06-00326-CR, & 11-06-00327-CR

                                                    __________

                                 WHITEFORD ROBINSON, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 104th District Court

                                                          Taylor County, Texas

                           Trial Court Cause Nos. 11,042-B, 11,043-B, & 11,044-B

                                                                   O P I N I O N

On August 24, 2006, the trial court entered orders denying Whiteford Robinson=s pro se motions for appointment of counsel to pursue DNA testing.  In the orders, the trial court stated that appellant had filed identical requests in 2002 and that the State had filed sworn responses that after a diligent search no evidence or substances were located that could be subject to DNA testing.

On November 3, 2006, appellant filed in the trial court pro se notices of appeal. Appellant also filed with this court pro se motions for new trial.  In the certificates of service,  appellant states that he mailed these motions to the clerk of the trial court on November 20, 2006.

On November 22, 2006, the clerk of this court wrote appellant informing him that it appeared these appeals were not timely perfected and requesting that appellant respond in writing on or before December 7, 2006, showing grounds for continuing these appeals.  Appellant has responded by filing responses contending that he timely filed motions for new trial.  Supplemental records containing the motions for new trial have been received in this court. These record reflect that the motions for new trial were filed on November 22, 2006.  These motions were filed more than thirty days after the date of the trial court=s orders and, therefore, are not timely.  Tex. R. App. P. 21.4.

Appellant has also filed pro se motions requesting judgments of acquittal for each of his convictions. In these motions, appellant contends that the trial court did not Astand@ by the plea bargain agreements and that, at trial, Athe trial court withheld that the DNA evidence was inconclusive therefore this is newly discovered evidence that was unknown at trial.@  Appellant has not established grounds for continuing these appeals.

Absent a timely notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for extension of time, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2, 26.3; Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). 

Therefore, the motions are overruled, and the appeals are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

December 14, 2006

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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.