### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 10
- 00389
- CR
EX PARTE ALICIA LEWI S

From the County Court at Law No. 2 Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 10002HC

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Alicia Lewis attempts to appeal from an order allegedly denying her writ of habeas corpus. Much of the factual recitation in this opinion of the events leading up to this appeal has been pieced together through various documents provided by Alicia’s mother, Linda. The recitation, however, is intended for background informatio n only and plays no part in our decision in this appeal. This appeal stems from an altercation between Linda Lewis, along with Alicia, and a bailiff for the County Court at Law No. 2 in Ellis County which occurred after a criminal hearing for a relative o f a friend which had taken place earlier in the day. The altercation resulted in both Linda and Alicia being found to be in contempt of court and committed to jail for 180 days. Alicia attempted to appeal the contempt order; however,Ex parte Lewis Page 2

orders for contempt of court cannot be appealed. Ex parte Eureste , 725 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). The appeal was dismissed. See Lewis v. State , No. 10

- 10

- 00013

- CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 1002 (Tex. App.

— Waco, Feb. 2, 2010, no pet.). Alicia apparently also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. She contends the petition was denied on January 14, 2010. She faxed a notice of appeal to this Court dated October 12, 2010 which was filed on October 28, 2010. A copy of the complained
of order was not attached to the notice of appeal. By letter dated October 29, 2010, the Clerk of this Court notified Alicia that the notice of appeal was untimely because, if the order denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was a final, appealable order, the
notice of appeal would have been due 30 days from the date of the order. Alicia was also warned that the appeal would be dismissed unless a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. A response was faxed. However, the response did not show grou nds for continuing the appeal but, instead, contained only a general plea for fairness and to continue the appeal. This appeal has many procedural problems, including Alicia’s failure to follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding service of documen ts, the faxing of documents, and the timeliness of filing a notice of appeal. While we interpret a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused from following the rules. See Nevarez v. Inv. Retrievers, Inc ., 2010 Tex. App. LEXI S 5469, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.

— El Paso, July 14, 2010, no pet.). This includes the timely filing of a notice of appeal. The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), and there is very little flexibility in this rule. The onlyEx parte Lewis Page 3

flexibility allowed is that within 15 days from the date the notice of appeal is due, a party may file a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Id .; T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 26.3. Alicia did not t ake advantage of this flexibility in the rule and presented her notice of appeal nine months after the petition for the writ was allegedly denied. Because the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, and Alicia’s notice of appeal was not tim ely filed, we can do nothing in this appeal except dismiss it. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed November 24 , 2010 Do not publish [OT06]