eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
 2011-04

Cordova, Jose Angel ( 2011 )


Menu:

  •   

















    IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

    OF TEXAS



    NO. PD-0630-10

    JOSE ANGEL CORDOVA, Appellant


    v.



    THE STATE OF TEXAS



    ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

    FROM THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

    HALE COUNTY

       Per Curiam.

    O P I N I O N





       Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine and, after the trial court revoked his community supervision, he was sentenced to confinement for two years in a State Jail Facility. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in accord with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). Cordova v. State, No. 07-09-00371-CR (Tex.App-Amarillo, delivered April 19, 2010). On June 22, 2010, Appellant timely filed his petition for discretionary review in the Court of Appeals. See Tex.R.App.P. 68.2. On July 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals withdrew its opinion, but failed to issue another opinion in its place. On January 6, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued another opinion and affirmed the conviction. Cordova v. State, No. 07-09-00371-CR (Amarillo, delivered January 6, 2011). The Court of Appeals's opinion issued on January 6, 2011, was untimely under rule 50 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it was issued more than 60 days after Appellant's petition for discretionary review had been filed. Accordingly, the court had no jurisdiction to issue that opinion. See Miller v. State, 267 S.W.3d 32 (Tex.Cr.App. 2008); Jones v. State, 280 S.W.3d 847 (Tex.Cr.App. 2006); Beller v. State, 191 S.W.3d 718 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005); Parsons v. State, 187 S.W.3d 385 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005); Ex parte Brashear, 985 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998); Garza v. State, 896 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995). Therefore, the Court of Appeals's opinion issued on January 6, 2011, is ordered withdrawn, and the original judgment and opinion of the Court of Appeals that issued on April 19, 2010, are reinstated.

    In his initial petition for discretionary review Appellant contended, among other things, that the Court of Appeals erred to find there were no arguable grounds for appeal. We agree. Accordingly, we grant ground four only of Appellant's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals dated April 19, 2010, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals to properly consider the arguable issues raised by Appellant.

    Delivered April 20, 2011

    Do not publish