i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 39 3- CR Mary S. RO BER TS , Appellant

v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 226th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-6404A Honora ble Sid L . Har le, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 27, 2008 DI SMI SSED FOR L ACK OF J URI SDI CTI ON Th e tr ia l c ourt

imp os e d s e nte nc e in t

he un de rl yingc a se on Febru ary 21 , 2 00 8. B e c a

us e appellant timely

filed a motion for ne w trial on Mar ch 20, 2008, the notice of appe al was due to be filed on May

21, 2008. T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 6. 2( a )( 2) ; Ro da rtev . S tate , 8 60 S.W .2d 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1993) (time limit for perfe cting appea l f rom judg ment of convic tion beg ins to run on day sentenc e is imposed or suspende d in ope n court, not on day written judgme nt is signe d). A motion for e x tension of time to file the notice of appea l was due w ithin the fifteen- day g rac e per iod, which04

- 08

- 00 39 3- CR

- 2- expired on J une 5, 2008. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3. Appellant filed he r notice of appea l in the trial court on May 30, 2008, but did not file a motion for extension of tim e. On J une 26, 2008, we order ed appellant to showcause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lac k of jurisdiction, noting “ When a notice of appea l is filed w ithin the f ifteen- day g rac e per iod but no tim ely motion for extension of tim e is fi l ed, the a ppellate c ourt lacks jurisdiction.” Ol iv o v . S

tate , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellant re sponded by reque sting that this c ourt construe her Statement of I nability to Affor d Counsel, which was f iled
on Ma y 20 , 2 0 0 8 , a s a

t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l c i t i n g c a s e s f

r o m o t h e r a p p e l l a t e c o u rt s a s s u

p p o rt
. Noticea bly absent from appellant’ s response was any citation to this court’s prior de cision in Ri v e ra
v . S tate , 940 S.W .2d 148, 149 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). In Ri v e ra , w e e xpre ssl y reje cted a reque st to construe a pa

uper’ s oath and re quest for a ppellate c ounsel as a timely notice of appea l. 940 S.W .2d at 149. Although ap p el l ant cited Pa lm a v . S tate , 7 6 S. W. 3 d

6 3 8 , 6 4 1 ( T e x. Ap p . — Co r

p u s Chr is ti 2 0 0 2 , p e t. r e f ’ d ) , in h e r r e s p o n s e , a

p p e ll an t f a il e d to a c kn o w le d g e tha t the Corpus Christi court disti ng uished our decision in Ri v e ra on the basis that the appe llant in Palma fi le d a le tte r wit h the tr ia l c ourt

e xpre ssi nghis de sir e to a pp e a l and did no t se e k to re ly

on a re qu e st for a ppointment of appellate counsel. Palma , 76 S.W .3d at 642. Appellant’s attorney is reminded that the Stand ar d s fo r Appellate Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court of T exas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals state that one of the lawy ers’ duties to the court is to “advise the Court of controllingleg al authorities, including those adve rse to their position.” As noted in Ri v e ra , the Texas Co urt of Criminal Appea ls “has spec ifically reje cted [a] ‘l ibe ra l po lic y ’ whe n th e pe rf e c tin g ins tr

ume nt i s unti me ly .” 94 0 S. W.2 d at 14 9. B e c a us e appellant’ s notice of a

ppeal wa s untimely

filed, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The04

- 08

- 00 39 3- CR

- 3- appellant may

pursue an out-of-time appea l by filing a writ of habe as cor pus. SeeT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . a rt . 1 1. 07 ; At e r v . E ig ht h Co ur t of Ap pe als , 802 S.W .2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ri v e ra , 940 S.W .2d at 149. PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH