Melanie Sue Knighten v. State ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-20-00044-CR
MELANIE SUE KNIGHTEN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 102nd District Court
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13F0483-102
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Melanie Sue Knighten has filed an untimely notice of appeal from a conviction of
possession of less than one gram of a penalty-group-one controlled substance 1 and the resulting
two-year sentence. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The judgment of conviction in this matter indicates that Knighten’s sentence was
imposed on February 4, 2020, and that her notice of appeal was filed on March 9, 2020, thirty-
four days after imposition of sentence. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2(b); Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d
39, 43–44 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (under “prisoner mailbox rule,” pro se inmate’s notice is
deemed filed when document is received by prison authorities for mailing).
There is nothing in the appellate record to indicate that Knighten filed a motion for new
trial. In the absence of a timely motion for new trial, Knighten, to perfect her appeal, was
required to file her notice of appeal within thirty days of the date sentence was imposed, or on or
before March 5, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). The notice of appeal, therefore, was
untimely.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed
notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d
519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1998) (per curiam).
We notified Knighten by letter that her notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that
the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We gave Knighten twenty days to
respond to our letter and to demonstrate how we had jurisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding
1
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b).
2
the noted defect. Knighten filed a response that failed to demonstrate how this Court has
jurisdiction over this appeal.
Because Knighten did not timely perfect her appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice
Date Submitted: May 4, 2020
Date Decided: May 5, 2020
Do Not Publish
3