Gabriel Silva v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00160-CR
NO. 02-14-00161-CR
GABRIEL SILVA APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. 0826138D, 0833761D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Pro se Appellant Gabriel Silva attempts to appeal from the trial court’s
February 12, 2014 denial of his request for a “Reformation of Judgment.”
A defendant’s notice of appeal is timely when it is filed within thirty days
after the day sentence is imposed or suspended. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).
Under the mailbox rule as it applies to prisoners, often referred to as the
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
“prisoner mailbox rule,” a pro se inmate’s pleading is deemed filed at the time the
prison authorities duly receive the document to be mailed. Taylor v. State, 424
S.W.3d 39, 44 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Silva’s notice of appeal was due by March 14, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P.
26.2(a)(1). He stated in the notice that it was submitted on March 10, 2014—
before the due date—but the parcel was postmarked March 27, 2014, and file
stamped April 16, 2014—weeks after the due date. See Tex. R. App. P.
26.2(a)(1). Concerned about the notice of appeal’s timeliness, on August 6,
2014, and September 15, 2014, we asked Silva to advise the court whether the
mailbox rule applied and informed him that the appeal could be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. Silva filed a response, but it does not show grounds for
continuing the appeals. See Taylor, 424 S.W.3d at 44. Accordingly, we dismiss
these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: October 16, 2014
2