NO. 07-09-00266-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL A 

AUGUST 6, 2010 

TAYLOR K. DURANT, APPELLANT 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; 

NO. 2008-452,073; HONORABLE LARRY B. "RUSTY" LADD, JUDGE 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant, Taylor K. Durant, appeals his conviction for misdemeanor driving while 

intoxicated.1 We will dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Factual and Procedural History 

 In July 2008, appellant was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The guiltinnocence phase of his trial was held on March 31, 2009, with the jury finding appellant 

guilty. The punishment phase of trial began on April 1, 2009, at the end of which the 

 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04 (Vernon 2003).
2 

jury assessed punishment. On that same day, the trial court pronounced sentence in 

accordance with the jury’s recommendations: 

 Sir, you came before this Court and a jury and entered a plea of not 

guilty to the offenses as set out in the information. The evidence was 

submitted. The jury was charged by the Court, and[,] after deliberating[,] 

the jury has returned a verdict finding you guilty of the offense of driving 

while intoxicated and assessing your punishment at [ten] days in the 

county jail and a $1,000 fine. They recommend you be placed on 

community supervision with the serving of the jail time as a condition of 

the probation and the fine to be suspended. 

 It is the judgment of this Court that you are guilty of this cause and 

guilty as charged in the information in accordance with the verdict 

rendered by the jury, that you be punished in accordance with the jury’s 

verdict. 

 Is there any legal reason why sentence should not be pronounced 

against you? Counsel? 

* * * 

 Finding nothing to bar the pronouncement of sentence against you, 

I sentence you to serve the sentence in accordance with the jury. I am 

going to order that you report to court in about a week or so, and we will 

get the exact date in just a second, so that a judgment can be prepared for 

your fingerprint, signatures, that will carry the conditions of probation on 

them. 

The trial court went on to discuss generally appellant’s right to appeal and the trial 

court’s authority to impose conditions of probation. Appellant filed a motion for new trial 

on April 30, 2009. He filed his notice of appeal on July 29, 2009. 

 On November 17, 2009, the Clerk of this Court sent to appellant a letter alerting 

him to the possible defect in our jurisdiction over this matter and inviting a response to 

the possible defect. Appellant did not file a response. 
3 

Analysis 

 A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’s jurisdiction. 

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). In the absence of a timelyfiled notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the 

merits of the appeal in a criminal case and can take no action other than to dismiss the 

appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); O'Conner v. State, 

266 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d). 

 Generally, in a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction, we begin our 

calculation of the time in which an appellant may file a notice of appeal from “the day 

sentence is imposed or suspended in open court,” not the day the written judgment was 

signed or filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 109–

10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993); O'Conner, 266 S.W.3d at 577–78. Here, the trial court 

imposed sentence in open court on April 1, 2009.2 

 Because he timely filed a motion for new trial, appellant had ninety days after the 

day sentence was imposed in open court to file his notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 21.4, 26.2(a)(2). Appellant, therefore, had until June 30, 2009, to file his notice of 

 2 Though neither party has addressed the issue of jurisdiction in briefing to this 

Court, we note that appellant does not raise any issue concerning the imposition of 

conditions of probation, a task which appears to have been completed several days 

after oral pronouncement of sentence. See Bailey v. State, 160 S.W.3d 11 

(Tex.Crim.App. 2004). This appeal arises from an “ordinary” appellate context; 

appellant challenges his conviction and sentence and raises one issue regarding the 

propriety of the trial court’s denial of his motion for mistrial made in response to the 

State’s improper jury argument. See O'Conner, 266 S.W.3d at 578.
4 

appeal. He filed his notice of appeal on July 29, 2009, well past both the deadline for 

filing his notice of appeal and the time in which he could have sought an extension of 

time in which to file a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Hence, this appeal is 

untimely, and we are without jurisdiction to hear it. 

Conclusion 

 Having concluded that appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed and was, 

therefore, ineffective to invoke our jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss his appeal 

for want of jurisdiction. We, accordingly, deny as moot appellant’s motion seeking leave 

to supplement the reporter’s record. 

 Mackey K. Hancock 

 Justice 

Do not publish.