### NUM BER 13-0 9-00 224- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ RA FA ELRA M IREZ , JR ., A pp ellan t, v . T H E STA

T E OF T EX

AS, A p p el le e.

____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On ap pe al f rom th e 1 07t h Dist rict C ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas .

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Rafael R amirez , J r. , attempted to per fect an appeal from a conv icti on for sex ual as saul t. W e di smi ss the appeal for want o f jur is dicti on. This C our

t' s a p pel lat e j ur is dicti on i n a c ri minal ca se isi nv oked by a t imel y fil ed noti ce of appeal
. Ol

iv o v . St ate , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522 (Tex
. Cr im. App. 1996)
. Abse nt a ti mely fil ed not ic e of appeal , a cour t of appeals does not hav e j ur is dicti on to address the1 T he t r i al cour t ’ s cer t i f i cat i on of t he def endan t ’ s r i ghtt o ap peal shows t hatt hi s i s a pl ea b ar gai n case

a n d th e d e fe n d a n t h a s n o ri g h t t o a p p e a l
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25. 2( a) ( 2)
. O n M ay5, 200 9, t hi s C our t not i f i ed appel l ant ’ s coun sel of t he t r i al cour t ’ s cer t i f i cat i on a nd or der ed counsel t o: (1 ) re v i ew t he r ecor d; (2 ) det er m i ne w h e th e ra p p e lla n t h a s a r ig h t t o a p p e a l; a n d ( 3 ) f o rw a r d to th is C o u rt, b yl e tte r, c o u n s e l ’ s fin d in g s a s to whet herapp el l anthas a r i ghtt o appeal , or , al t er nat i v el y , adv i se t hi s C our t as t o t he e xi st ence ofanyam ended cer t i f i cat i on. 2 meri ts of the appe al and c an ta ke no acti on ot her than to dis mis s t he appe a l fo r wan t of jur is dicti on. Sl

aton v. State , 981 S.W .2d 2 08, 2 10 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998)
. The tr ial cour

t impos ed sent ence in thi s matter on M ay 22, 2008. Appel lan t fil ed a pro s e not ic e of appeal on A pr il 8, 2009. On Apr il 21, 2009, the C ler k o f thisC our t not ified appel lan t t hat i t app eared th at t he appe al w as not t imely per fected an d tha t t he appe al woul d be dis mis sed if the d efect was not c or re cte d w it hin ten days from the date of rec eip t of the C our

t’ s d irect iv e. 1 On May 6, 2009, appel lan t’ s couns el adv is ed the Cour t that he was not a ppoi nted to representappel lan t on appeal
. Addi ti onal ly , appel lan t filed a moti on for appoi ntment of couns el. On Ma y 12, 2009, the tr ial cour t g ra nted appel lan t’ s c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdraw as cou nsel. T his Court ab ate d the ca se on May2 0, 20 09 a nd rem and ed it to th e trial court to de term ine w het her ap pellan t desires to prosecu te the app eal, and w het her appellan t is ind ig ent a nd ent it led to cour t- appoi nted couns el. O n J une 3, 2009, t h isC our t recei v ed noti ce from the tr ial co urt t h at on Sept ember 29, 2008, the t ri al cour t had appoi nted the Hon orabl e Ar nol do R . Pe na to representappel lan t. On J une 3, 2009, the Cl er k of t his Cou rt noti fied appel lan t that itappeared th at t he appeal was not t imel y

per fected an d tha t t he appe al woul d be dis mis sed if the defect was not c or re cte d w it hin ten days from the date of rec eip t of the Cou rt ’sdirect iv e. On J une 12, 20 0 9 , a p p e l l a n t fi l e d a mo t i o n fo r l e a v e t o l a t e fi l e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l
. A p p e l l a n t ’s moti on sta tes thatco unsel recei v ed not ic e that he w as appoi nted as couns el for appe ll ant o n or3

about Oct ober

4, 2008, and filed a noti ce of ap peal on June 9, 20 09. Appel lan t req uest s that the C our

t ac cepthi s n oti ce of appeal as bei ng ti mely fil ed. Unl ess a mot ion for n ew tr ial has been ti mely

fil ed, a notic e of

appeal must b e fil ed w it hin thi rty

days a fter the daysentenc e is impos ed or susp ended in open cour t, or after the d a y t h e tri al cour

t ent ers a n appea lab le order
. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2( a) (1 ). W here a ti mely moti on for new tr ial has been filed , t he not ic e of appeal mustbe fil ed w it hin ni nety days a fter t he day

se ntenc e i s i mposed or su spend ed i n open cour t. See i d. 2 6
. 2(a)(2). The ti me w it hin w hic h to file the n oti ce m a y b e enl arg ed i f, w it hin fifteen days a fter t he deadl ine for fil ing the noti ce, the par ty fil es the n oti ce o f

a p p e a l a nd a moti on c omply ing w it h R ule 10.5 (b ) of the Texas Rul es of Appel lat e Procedu re . See i d. 26.3
. Appel lan t ’ s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , fi l e d m o re t h a n t e n m o n t h s a ft e r s e n t e n c e w as impos ed, was unti mely , and accordin g ly , w e lack jur is dicti on ov er

the appeal
. See Slaton , 981 S. W .2d a t 210
. Acc ordin g ly , app ell ant’ s mot ion for l eav e to lat e fil e not ic e of appeal isD EN IED
. Appel lan t may be e nti tl ed to an o ut- of-ti me appeal by fil ing a po st- conv icti on w ri t of habeasco rp us re tu rn a b le to t he Texas Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls ; howev er , t he av ail abi li ty

of that re medy

i s b eyond t he j ur is dicti on of thi s C our t. SeeT EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar

t. 11.07, § 3( a) ( Ver non 200 5) ; see a lso Ex parte Garcia , 988 S.W .2d 2 40 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1999)
. The appeal i s D ISM ISSE D FO R W AN T OF JU RI SD IC TION
. PERC UR IAM Do not p ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 13t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.