Olidio Cantu v. State ( 2006 )

Opinion filed February 16, 2006

Opinion filed February 16, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-06-00020-CR

                                                    __________

                                        OLIDIO CANTU, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 35th District Court

                                                          Brown County, Texas

                                                Trial Court Cause No. CR16-533

                                                                   O P I N I O N

The trial court convicted Olidio Cantu, upon his plea of no contest, of the offense of possession of a controlled substance.  A plea bargain agreement was not reached.  The trial court assessed appellant=s punishment at confinement for two years in a state jail facility and a $2,000 fine.  On March 10, 2004, the trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for five years.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

On January 24, 2006, appellant filed in this court numerous documents including a pro se notice of appeal from the 2004 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The clerk of this court wrote the parties informing them that it appeared an appeal had not been timely or properly perfected and directing appellant to respond showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  Appellant has replied and argues that he Afeels that all allegations made are true@ and asks for this court=s Aguidance.@  This court is invested with jurisdiction to consider appeals and original writs and is unable to give legal advice to parties before the court.  Tex. Const. art. V, ' 6.

The January 24, 2006 notice of appeal was neither timely filed nor properly filed pursuant to Tex. R. App. P.  25.2 and 26.2. Absent a timely, proper notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for extension of time, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.  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).

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

February 16, 2006

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

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.