Willie Lindley, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 283rd District Court of Dallas County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Willie Lindley, Jr.

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-02-00202-CR B Appeal from Dallas County

State of Texas

Appellee

The trial court convicted appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of indecency with a child. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 21.11 (Vernon Supp. 2002). Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court assessed appellant=s punishment at confinement for 5 years.

The sentence was imposed in open court on July 10, 2001. On May 20, 2002, appellant filed with the clerk of the trial court a pro se notice of appeal. In this notice, appellant stated that he wished to challenge the trial court=s rulings made prior to his guilty plea on his written motions. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(b)(3). While it complies with Rule 25.2(b)(3), the notice was filed 10 months after the date the sentence was imposed and is not timely. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2.

Counsel for appellant has filed a motion to continue the appeal, stating that appellant was not informed of his right to appeal and did not understand the appellate timetables. Absent a timely notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for extension of time, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.Cr.App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Cr.App.1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex.Cr.App.1993); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). Appellant=s contentions may best be raised in a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2002).

Appellant=s motion is overruled, and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

September 5, 2002

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.