Shurn Rolle v. The State of Texas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued November 1, 2012 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________ NO. 01-12-00648-CR ____________ SHURN ROLLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1285171 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Shurn Rolle, pleaded guilty, without an agreed recommendation from the State, to the offense of assault with a deadly weapon, and the trial court assessed punishment of confinement for 20 years. Because appellant s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or 30 days after the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to 90 days after the day the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court if the appellant timely filed a motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2). To be considered timely, a motion for new trial must be filed within 30 days after the date the trial court imposes or suspends sentence in open court. TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4. The record before us reflects that appellant s sentence was imposed on October 7, 2011. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Hence, a notice of appeal was due on or before November 7, 2011. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Appellant filed her notice of appeal on July 6, 2012. A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The court of criminal appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion for extension of time, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. 2 Because the notice of appeal in this case was untimely, we have no basis for jurisdiction over this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3
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.
