1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 454- CR B AR B AR A C OUR S E Y HE R T E L AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CO URT AT LAW NO . 2 OF PARKER CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antBar bar a Cour se y Herte l at t em pt s t o a ppe al he rco nvi ct i on f or dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed, f orw hi ch she w as sent enced t o 1 80 days’ con f i nem enton Augus t22, 2008 . Her t el t i m el y f i l ed a m ot i on f or new t r i al on Se pt e m be r5, 2008 . Hert e l ’ s n ot i c e of a pp e a l w a s d ue Nov e m be r20, 2008 , bu tw a s n otf i l e d un t i l Dec e m be r3, 2008 .2

O n D ecem ber5, 20 08 , w e sentH ert el a l et t erst at i ng t hatt he cour tw as con ce r ned t hati tl ac ke d j ur i sd i ct i o n ove rhe rap pea l be ca us e h ernot i ce of a p p e a l w a s n o t ti m e l yfi l e d . S ee Tex . R . A pp. P. 26 . 2. O url et t eral so st at ed t hatt he t r i al cour t ’ s cert i f i cat i on st at ed t hatt hi s i s a pl ea- ba rgai n case, t hat H e rte l h a d n o ri g h t o f a p p e a l , a n d th a t s h e h a d w a i v e d h e r ri g h t o f a p p e a l . W e i ns t r uct ed H ert el oran y pa rt y de si r i ng t o c ont i nu e t he app ea l t o f i l e w i t h t he cour ta r esponse show i ng gr oun ds f or conti nui ng t he appeal . W e have r ecei ved no r esponse. The Tex as Rul es ofA p p e l l at e Pr oce dur e s etoutr ul es t hatm us tbe fo l l o w e d i n o rd e r to i n v o k e t h i s c o u rt’s j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r a n a p p e a l . W hite v. S tate , 6 1 S .W .3 d 4 2 4 , 4 2 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). I f t h e j u ri sd i c ti o n o f a cour tofappeal s i s notpr oper l y i nvoked , t he pow er oft he appel l at e cour tt o act i s a s a b s e n t a s i f i t d i d n o t e x i s t. Id . Appel l at e j ur i sd i ct i on i s i nvok ed by g i vi ng ti m e l ya n d p ro p e r n o ti c e o f a p p e a l . Id. A ddi t i onal l y, r ul e 25 . 2( a) ( 2) oft he appel l at e r ul es pr ovi des t hati n a pl eabar gai n c as e, an ap pel l antm ay app ea l onl y “t hos e m at t er s t hat w er e r ai se d by w ri tte n m o ti o n fi l e d a n d ru l e d o n b e fo re tri a l ” o r “ a fte r g e ttin g th e tri a l c o u rt’s p e r m is s io n t o a p p e a l.” T e x . R . A p p . P . 2 5 .2 (a )( 2 ). H e r e , H e rt e l w a iv e d a ll pr et r i al m ot i ons , and t he t r i al cou rt has not gi ven per m i ss i on t o a p p e a l . S ee E strada v. S tate , 149 S. W . 3d 280, 282 ( Te x. App.

— Hous t on [ 1s tDi s t . ] 2004 ,3

pet . r ef ’ d) ( st at i ng t hatt her e i s no exc ept i on f or t he t r i al co urt ’ s r ef us al t o gr ant p e rm i s s i o n to a p p e a l ). Becau se t he t r i al cour tcert i f i ed t hat H ert el possesses no r i ght ofappeal and be ca us e Hert el f ai l ed t o f i l e a t i m el y no t i ce ofap pea l , w e hol d t hat w e d o n o t h a v e j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r th i s a p p e a l . S e eSl a to n v. S tate , 981 S. W . 2d 208, 210 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1998 ) . Absen tap pel l at e j ur i sd i ct i o n , w e c an t ak e n o a c ti o n o th e r th a n to d i s m i s s th e a p p e a l . See i d. ; O l ivo v. S tate, 918 S. W . 2d 51 9, 52 3, 52 5 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 96 ) . A ccor di ngl y, w e di sm i ss t hi s appeal f orw antofj ur i sd i ct i on. See T e x . R . A p p . P . 2 5 .2 (d ); V a n n v. S tate , No. 02- 08- 00332 - CR, 2008 W L4779 601, a t*2 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h O c t . 30, 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p ., n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ).

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: W A LKER, M C C O Y, an d M EI ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J a nu a r y 22, 2009