MIGUEL ALVAREZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Annotate this Case

DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 29, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-01152-CR
............................
MIGUEL ALVAREZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 24670-86
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Richter, and Lang-Miers
        Miguel Alvarez pleaded nolo contendere to possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of 200 grams or more but less than 400 grams. Pursuant to a plea agreement, punishment was assessed at ten years' imprisonment. Sentence was imposed in open court on April 24, 2008. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on May 21, 2008; therefore, his notice of appeal was due by July 23, 2008. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2). Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on September 13, 2010. Because the notice of appeal is untimely, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal.   See Footnote 1  See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam); Boyd v. State, 971 S.W.2d 603, 605-06 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.).
        We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
                                                          
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
101152F.U05
 
Footnote 1 We further lack jurisdiction because the trial court certified both that the case involved a plea bargain and appellant has no right to appeal and that appellant waived his right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The certification is supported by the record. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

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.