Frank Joe Ramirez v. State ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                          COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-11-00359-CR
    FRANK JOE RAMIREZ                                                     APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                          STATE
    ----------
    FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
    ----------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    ----------
    Frank Joe Ramirez filed a notice of appeal from his conviction for unlawful
    possession of a firearm by a felon. Because appellant did not timely file his
    notice of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
    In a criminal case, an appeal is perfected by the timely filing of a notice of
    appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b). To be timely, the notice of appeal must be filed
    within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court
    1
    See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    or within ninety days if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. Tex. R.
    App. P. 26.2(a). In this case, the trial court imposed sentence on May 19, 2011.
    Appellant filed a motion for new trial, but it was not timely: the motion was due
    on June 20, 2011, and appellant filed his motion by hand delivery on July 1,
    2011. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was also due on June 20, 2011.
    Appellant filed the notice on August 17, 2011.
    On August 23, 2011, we notified appellant of our concern that we may lack
    jurisdiction over the appeal because it was untimely filed, and we informed him
    that his appeal was subject to dismissal unless he or any party desiring to
    continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.
    See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Appellant’s counsel responded with a letter explaining
    that he had assumed that the deadline to file a notice of appeal was ninety days,
    not thirty days, because the trial court accepted the motion for new trial and there
    was a hearing on that motion.       This response does not show grounds for
    continuing the appeal. See Mendez v. State, 
    914 S.W.2d 579
    , 580 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 1996).
    A timely notice of appeal is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction.
    See Olivo v. State, 
    918 S.W.2d 519
    , 522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also
    Slaton v. State, 
    981 S.W.2d 208
    , 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The appropriate
    vehicle for seeking an untimely appeal is by filing an application for writ of
    habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure. Tex. Code
    2
    Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West 2010); Ashorn v. State, 
    77 S.W.3d 405
    , 409
    (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (op. on reh’g).
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.
    App. P. 43.2(f).
    PER CURIAM
    PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: October 6, 2011
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-11-00359-CR

Filed Date: 10/6/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015