Kenderick Bernard Webb v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 337th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this CaseOpinion issued December 14, 2006
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
___________
NOS 01-06-01058-CR
01-06-01059-CR
____________
KENDERICK BERNARD WEBB Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 337th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 1036879 and 1036880
MEMORANDUM OPINION
We lack jurisdiction to hear these appeals. The trial court sentenced appellant, Kenderick Bernard Webb, and signed a final judgment in each case on March 30, 2006. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial in either case, and therefore the deadline for filing a notices of appeal was 30 days after sentencing in each case. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Specifically, the deadline for filing notice of appeal in each case was Monday, April 1, 2006, because the thirtieth day after sentencing fell on a weekend. Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a)(1).
Appellant filed notices of appeal in each case on October 25, 2006, 209 days after the deadline. The notices of appeal were deposited in the mail on October 23, 2006, according to the postmark on the copy of the envelope included in the clerk's record. Because the notices of appeal were mailed after the filing deadline, they did not comply with Rule 9.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the "mailbox rule." See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b).
An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction to hear the case. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
We therefore dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
Any pending motions are denied as moot.
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Hanks.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
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.