Court Opinion

ID: 9387812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 06:07:35.673845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.694190
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 12, 2023

                                    S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00233-CR

                KVAUGHANDRE LAPAUL PRESLEY, Appellant
                                 V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6
                             Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. F21-25070-X

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
           Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Nowell, and Justice Garcia
                          Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
      Kvaughandre Lapaul Presley appeals his conviction for capital murder. The

record demonstrates we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

      A defendant perfects his appeal by timely filing a written notice of appeal with

the trial court clerk. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c). To be timely, the notice of appeal

must be filed within thirty days after the date sentence was imposed or within ninety

days after sentencing if the defendant timely filed a motion for new trial. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 26.2(a). A motion for new trial must be filed no later than thirty days after

sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4(a). The rules

of appellate procedure allow the time to file a notice of appeal to be extended if the

party files, within fifteen days of the filing deadline, the notice of appeal in the trial

court and a motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal in the court of

appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. In the absence of a timely perfected

notice of appeal, the Court must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Ex parte

Castillo, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d

208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam).

      Here, the trial court imposed punishment on September 23, 2022. The notice

of appeal or motion for new trial were due Monday, October 24, 2022. Appellant

moved for a new trial on March 8, 2023, which was untimely. Therefore, appellant’s

notice of appeal was due Monday October 24, 2022. Any motion to extend the time

to file the notice of appeal would have been due on or before November 8, 2022.

      Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed March 8, 2023. Thus, appellant’s

notice of appeal was not timely, and we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Ex parte

Castillo, 369 S.W.3d at 198. We requested letter briefs from the parties concerning

the Court’s jurisdiction. Appellant’s counsel filed a letter brief stating that based on

the record, it appears the Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal.

                                          –2–
      We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                          /Robert D. Burns, III/
                                          ROBERT D. BURNS, III
                                          CHIEF JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
230233F.U05

                                       –3–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

KVAUGHANDRE LAPAUL                          On Appeal from the Criminal District
PRESLEY, Appellant                          Court No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
                                            Trial Court Cause No. F21-25070-X.
No. 05-23-00233-CR         V.               Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
                                            Burns. Justices Nowell and Garcia
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                participating.

     Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for
wan of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered April 12, 2023

                                      –4–