Court Opinion

ID: 2925250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:17:44.094572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:10.571020
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-08-00187-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

______________________________________________________________
 
MICHAEL FLORES, JR., 	Appellant,
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,	Appellee. 
_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Rodriguez

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

	Appellant, Michael Flores, Jr., attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for
intoxication assault.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
	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).  Absent a
timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the
merits of the appeal 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).  
	On April 10, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the
appeal was not timely perfected and 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 filed a response to the Court's directive.  We also note that the certification of
appellant's right to appeal fails to reflect that appellant has the right to appeal.  See Tex.
R. App. P. 25.2(d). 
	Appellant's notice of appeal  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) (Vernon 2005); see also Ex
parte Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
	The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 		

								PER CURIAM

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 
filed this the 17th day of July, 2008.