Lorenzo Timmons v. State ( 2013 )

Opinion issued April 23, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00754-CR
———————————
LORENZO TIMMONS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 208th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 458204
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 1, 1987, appellant, Lorenzo Timmons, pleaded nolo contendere
to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial court deferred
adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. On
April 10, 1997, the trial court signed an order stating that appellant had
“unsatisfactorily” completed his term of community supervision, namely, that he
had completed his 10-year term but had not paid the costs as ordered. 1 On August
6, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
To the degree appellant seeks to appeal from the trial court’s order placing
him on deferred adjudication community supervision, even if the order is
appealable,2 appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. The record reflects
that appellant’s sentence was suspended on April 1, 1987. Therefore, a notice of
appeal was due on or before May 1, 1987. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Appellant
did not file his notice of appeal until 25 years later, on August 6, 2012.
In addition, to the degree appellant challenges the trial court’s April 1, 1997
order on the completion of his community supervision, appellant’s notice of appeal
filed 15 years later, on August 6, 2012, was untimely filed. See id.
Because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we have no basis
for jurisdiction over the appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1996); Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
1
The trial court did not fill out the portion of the boilerplate form concerning
adjudication or dismissal of the case.
2
Prior to November 3, 1987, appellate review of an order deferring adjudication
was precluded. See Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 943 (Tex. Crim. App.
1992); Kite v. State, 788 S.W.2d 403, 404–05 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
1990 no pet.) (stating that “[p]rior to November 3, 1987, appellate courts had no
jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a defendant who received deferred
adjudication.”).
2
Appellant complains that he successfully completed deferred adjudication in
this case and that this offense is being improperly used to enhance punishment in
another case. Appellant complains that the statutory provision permitting such
enhancement did not exist at the time adjudication was deferred. See Scott v. State,
55 S.W.3d 593, 594–98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). This issue is not properly raised
in a direct appeal from this case. See e.g., Martinez v. State, No. 05-00-00517-CR,
2002 WL 257697, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 25, 2002, no pet.) (not designated
for publication) (considering whether statute in effect at time of defendant’s prior
placement on deferred adjudication applied to preclude use of such deferred
adjudication to enhance his punishment in subsequent offense).
On February 25, 2013, we notified appellant of our intent to dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless he showed grounds for continuing the appeal.
Appellant did not respond.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending
motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3