Court Opinion

ID: 4432128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-08-22 14:15:56.761763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:28.337837
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-19-00288-CR

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                        CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

EVA MARIE HENDRIX,                                                                      Appellant,

                                                  v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the County Court at Law
                   of Navarro County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Perkes
                  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

       Appellant, Eva Maria Hendrix, attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for

forgery. 1   We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

        1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant

to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §
73.001.
         Sentence in this matter was imposed on December 19, 2018. No motion for new

trial was filed. Notice of appeal was filed on April 17, 2019. On June 26, 2019, the Clerk

of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected.

Appellant was advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected

within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court’s directive.         Appellant has not

responded to this notice.

         Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when

notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended

in open court unless a motion for new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). The

time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the deadline

for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying with Rule

10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3.

         This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed

notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). “When

a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen-day period but no timely motion for extension

of time is filed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction.” Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. Absent

a timely filed notice of appeal, 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 for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App.

1998).

                                              2
         Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed more than three months after sentence was

imposed, was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.          See

Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210.

         Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing a post-conviction writ

of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the

availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a); see also Ex parte Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App.

1999).

         The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

                                                                LETICIA HINOJOSA
                                                                Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the
22nd day of August, 2019.

                                              3