I n case s appea led from a muni cipal court of record to a county court at law, “[ t] he appe llant 1 has the rig ht to appeal to the c ourt of appe als if the fine assessed a g ainst the defe ndant exceeds $100 a nd if the jud g me nt is a ff

ir me d b y the a pp e llate c ourt .” Te x. Go v’ t Co de An n. § 3 0. 00 02 7( a ) ( Wes t 2004). This statute does not authorize the instant appe als. The State a sserts t hat the appe als are authorized by

article 44.01(a) (1) a

nd rule 25.2(a )(1)

. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 44.01(a) (1) (West Supp. 2004-05); Tex. R . App. P. 25.2(a)( 1). 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00473- CR NO. 03-05-00474- CR NO. 03-05-00475- CR

The St at e of Te xa s, App e lla nt

v. Law rence Seward, Ap pellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NOS . 69935 5, 6993 56 & 69935 7, HO NORAB LE J. DAVID PH ILLIP S, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Af te r t he mun ic ipa l c ou rt

of re c or d dis mis se d thr e e c ri min a l c omp la int s f ile d a g a ins t appellee L awr ence Sewar d, the State appea led to the county court a t law. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 30.00014(a) (West 2004); Tex. C ode Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 44.01(a) (1) ( West S upp. 2004-05). The

a pp e lla te c ou rt

a ff ir me d th e dis mis sa ls, a nd

the Sta te no w s e e ks to a

pp e a l to thi s Co ur

t. 1 The county court at law’s judgme nt in these cause s was rende red on June 22, 2005. The de adline for the S tate to perf ect an appea l to this Court pursuant to article 44.01 was ther efor e J uly 7, 2005. See Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 4 4. 01 (d ); Te x. R. A

pp . P. 26 .2 (b)

. Th e Sta teUnder rule 25.2(c) (1), an appea l is perf ecte d by filing a written notice of a ppeal “ with the trial 2 court c lerk.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2( c)( 1). To perf ect an appe al to this Court from the county court at law sitting as an appellate court, we assume that the State was r equire d to file its notice of appe al with the county

cler k, not the municipal cler

k. Th e co u n t y cl er k h as fi l ed s u p p lemental rec ords containing copies of the notices of a ppeal 3 bear ing ne w file mar

ks dated July

19, 2005. 2 mistakenly

attempted to file its notices of a ppeal in this Court. See Tex. R. App. P . 25.2(c) (1). The 2

no tic e s w e re re c e ive d by thi s Court on July 7, bu t the y we re no t fi le d by the c ounty c le rk un til July 9, 2005. 3 I n c ivi l c a se s, a no tic e of a pp e a l th a t is mis ta ke nly

fi le d w iththe c ourt

of a pp e a ls i s deeme d filed on the same day with the trial court c lerk. Te x . R. App. P. 25.1(a). T h er e i s no compar able r

ule in criminal ca ses. Se e Do ug las v . S tat e , 9 8 7 S. W. 2 d 605, 605 n.2 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). The re is no i ndication that the notices of appea l were mailed to the county cler

k on or befor e J uly 7. See Te x. R. Ap p. P. 9.2 (b ). Un de r t he c ir c ums tanc e s, we lac k jurisdiction to dis pose of the pur ported a ppeals in any

manner other than by

dismiss ing the m for wa nt of jurisdiction. See State v . Muller , 829 S.W .2d 805, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). The a ppeals a re dismissed.

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth L aw, Justi ce Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Aug ust 31, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh