Court Opinion

ID: 2922062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:51:54.560663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:09.103168
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-05-427-CR
 
                         COURT
OF APPEALS
 
               THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                  CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG
_ 
_________________________________________________________________
 
RAFAEL HINOJOSA A/K/A RAFAEL HINOJOSA III,         Appellant,
 
                                           v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                              Appellee.
_ 
_________________________________________________________________
 
                  On
appeal from the 103rd District Court 
                          of
Cameron County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________
 
                     MEMORANDUM
OPINION
 
               Before
Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza
                       Memorandum
Opinion Per Curiam
 

Appellant, RAFAEL HINOJOSA A/K/A RAFAEL HINOJOSA III,
attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 103rd
District Court of Cameron County, Texas.  Sentence in this cause was imposed on April 8, 2005.  An untimely
motion for new trial was filed on May 18, 2005.   The notice of appeal was due to be filed on May 8, 2005, but was not filed until July 5, 2005.   Said notice of appeal is untimely filed. 
Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 provides that the court of appeals may grant an
extension of time for filing notice of appeal if such notice is filed
within  fifteen days of the last day
allowed and within the same period a motion is filed in the court of appeals
reasonably explaining the need for such extension.  Appellant failed to file his notice of appeal
and a motion requesting an extension of time within such period.  The State has filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The Court, having considered the documents on file, appellant's
failure to timely perfect his appeal, and the State=s motion to dismiss
the appeal for want of jurisdiction, is of the opinion that the appeal should
be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 
The State=s motion to dismiss
the appeal for want of jurisdiction is GRANTED. 
The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
Tex.
R. App. P.
47.2(b).
 
Memorandum Opinion
delivered and filed 
this the 10th
day of November, 2005.