In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-21-00200-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 462nd District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. F21-2054-462

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

ELMER LAREZ-RIVERO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Elmer Larez-Rivero attempts to appeal from his October 15, 2021 

conviction for indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11.

Because Larez-Rivero did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due 

no later than November 15, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Larez-Rivero’s 

notice of appeal, however, was postmarked on November 18, 2021—three days after 

the deadline—and it was file-stamped by the trial-court clerk on December 6, 2021—

twenty-one days after the deadline. Cf. Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b); Taylor v. State, 

424 S.W.3d 39, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Larez-Rivero’s ability to appeal his conviction runs into further problems 

because it was made pursuant to a plea bargain. Larez-Rivero pleaded guilty to the 

underlying offense and signed a waiver of his right to appeal, and the trial court 

sentenced him accordingly. The trial court’s certification of his right to appeal states 

that the case “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and 

that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On March 22, 2022, we notified Larez-Rivero that it appeared we lacked 

jurisdiction over this appeal because his notice of appeal was not timely filed and 

because the trial court’s certification reflected that he had no right of appeal.1 We 

advised him that this appeal could be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to 

1Prior to our March 22, 2022 letter, we questioned our jurisdiction over this 

appeal in two other letters to Larez-Rivero.
3

continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or 

before April 1, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Although we received a response from 

Larez-Rivero, it does not address our jurisdictional concerns or show grounds for 

continuing the appeal. 

A timely notice of appeal is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. See 

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Although we may 

extend the jurisdictional deadline if a notice of appeal is filed in the trial court within 

fifteen days of its due date, we may not do so in the absence of a motion requesting 

such relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; Kessinger v. State,

26 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref’d) (per curiam). Here, 

Larez-Rivero did not file a motion for extension of time with his untimely notice of 

appeal. 

Moreover, the right to appeal a conviction arising from a plea-bargain 

agreement is limited to matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled 

upon before trial or to cases in which the appellant obtained the trial court’s 

permission to appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02; Tex. R. App. 

P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification in this case does not show that LarezRivero was granted permission to appeal, and the record does not indicate that LarezRivero intends to challenge a ruling on a written motion filed and ruled on before he 

pleaded guilty. Thus, because Larez-Rivero’s appeal was untimely, and in accordance 
4

with the trial court’s certification, we dismiss Larez-Rivero’s appeal. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522–23.

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: April 21, 2022