Dakari Smith v. State

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00150-CR
___________________________
DAKARI SMITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 396th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1543876D
Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel, J.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court convicted pro se Appellant Dakari
Smith of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and sentenced him to twenty-five
years’ confinement. Appellant filed a notice of appeal more than two years later.
Because we have no jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal.
Appellant pled guilty to evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and true to
the habitual-offender allegations in exchange for a sentence of twenty-five years. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42(d), 38.04(b)(2)(A). On July 9, 2018, the trial court
convicted and sentenced him in accordance with the bargain.1 Appellant did not file a
motion for new trial. His notice of appeal was therefore due by August 8, 2018, but he
did not file it until October 20, 2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a) (providing that a
notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of sentencing absent a timely motion
for new trial). Thus, Appellant filed his notice of appeal more than two years too late.
See id.; Taylor v. State, No. 02-19-00059-CR, 2019 WL 1574984, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Apr. 11, 2019, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
We informed Appellant by letter of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over
this appeal because his notice of appeal was untimely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).
1
The plea paperwork indicates that Appellant was subject to a range of
punishment of 25–99 years or life as a habitual offender. He judicially confessed not
only to evading arrest or detention with a vehicle but also to the truth of the State’s
deadly-weapon and habitual-offender allegations. The trial court found both of those
allegations true.
2
We stated that the appeal would be subject to dismissal absent a response showing
grounds for continuing it. We received no response.
A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential
to vest this court with jurisdiction over an appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. The Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that without a timely filed notice of
appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519,
522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
Because Appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal too late, we dismiss this
appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Taylor, 2019 WL 1574984,
at *1.
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: December 3, 2020
3