Craig Alan Davidson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 228th District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2005

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00839-CR

____________

CRAIG ALAN DAVIDSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1015172

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

After appellant pled guilty without an agreed recommendation from the State on sentencing, the trial court entered an order on June 24, 2005, deferring adjudication of guilt and placing appellant on ten years= community supervision. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on July 22, 2005. Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed until August 4, 2005.


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). An order deferring adjudication of guilt, however, is not a finding or verdict of guilt, and therefore, an appellant is not entitled to seek a new trial by filing a motion for new trial after adjudication is deferred. Donovan v. State, 68 S.W.3d 633, 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Because appellant is not entitled to file a motion for new trial, the motion for new trial filed by appellant does not extend the appellate deadline for filing the notice of appeal.

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). 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. Id.

The notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days after the signing of the order deferring adjudication of guilt. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Frost, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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.