Jackson, Robrichee Daniel v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 339th District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 6, 2003

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 6, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-01101-CR

____________

ROBRICHEE DANIEL JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No.  935,000

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a plea of guilty, appellant was convicted of the offense of aggravated robbery and on August 19, 2003 was sentenced to twenty years= imprisonment. No motion for new trial was filed. Appellant first filed his pro se notice of appeal on September 12, 2003, in the appellate court, rather than with the trial court clerk as required. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(c). The notice of appeal was thus untimely filed with the trial court clerk on September 24, 2003. Appellant did not file a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal.


A defendant=s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The rules do not provide an exception for documents filed in the wrong court. See Rivera v. State, 940 S.W.2d 148, 149 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 1996, no writ). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 6, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Frost, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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.