Antonio Soto v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 34th District Court of El Paso County

Annotate this Case
Criminal Case Template COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

 
ANTONIO SOTO,

Appellant,

 

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

Appellee.

 

 

 

 

No. 08-03-00219-CR

 

Appeal from the

 

34th District Court

 

of El Paso County, Texas

 

(TC# 20010D03179)

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

According to the documents filed in this Court, Antonio Soto was sentenced on February 4, 2003 for the offense of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. He filed a motion for new trial on April 10, 2003, and a notice of appeal on May 15, 2003.

A motion for new trial is due within thirty days after the date the trial court imposes or suspends sentence. Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a). Therefore, Soto's motion for new trial was due on March 6, 2003. A defendant's notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended, or within ninety days after sentencing if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Because Soto did not file a timely motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due on March 6, 2003. A court of appeals may grant an extension of time to file the notice of appeal if the notice is filed within fifteen days after the last day allowed and, within the same period, a motion is filed in the court of appeals reasonably explaining the need for the extension of time. Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. Soto did not file his notice of appeal within the fifteen-day grace period and he did not file a motion for extension of time.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. Because it appeared that Soto's notice of appeal was untimely, we notified the parties on May 19, 2003 of our intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless any party could show grounds for continuing the appeal. We received no response to this notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 

SUSAN LARSEN, Justice

July 3, 2003

 

Before Panel No. 1

Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.

 

(Do Not Publish)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.