DocketNumber： 01-02-01037-CR
Filed Date： 11/21/2002
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/2/2015
Opinion issued November 21, 2002
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-02-01037-CR
____________
ROGER ANTHONY RAMIREZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 183rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 850480
MEMORANDUM OPINION
We are without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Appellant was sentenced in this case on May 24, 2001. On September 16, 2002, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. On September 17, 2002, he filed a pro se motion for new trial.
The motion for new trial was untimely because it was not filed within 30 days after sentencing. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a). An untimely motion for new trial does not extend the deadline for filing notice of appeal. Mendez v. State, 914 S.W.2d 579, 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). However, even if the motion for new trial had been timely filed, it would have extended the time for filing notice of appeal only from 30 days after imposition of sentence to 90 days after imposition of sentence. In other words, appellant's notice of appeal would have been due on August 22, 2001, had the motion for new trial been timely filed. Because it was not, the deadline for filing notice of appeal was 30 days after the imposition of sentence. In this case, the deadline was Monday, June 25, 2001 because the thirtieth day fell on a weekend. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a)(1).
Appellant's notice of appeal, filed on September 16, 2002, was more than one year late. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
All pending motions are denied as moot.
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Taft, Alcala, and Price. (1)
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
1.