Ronney Earl Williams v. The State of Texas Appeal from 232nd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 20, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00781-CR RONNEY EARL WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1476283 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a guilty plea to attempted forgery of a government instrument. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant on March 14, 2016, to confinement for eleven months in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. On July 7, 2016, this court dismissed appellant’s appeal on the grounds that appellant entered into a plea bargain and had no right to appeal. On September 16, 2016, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in an apparent attempt to appeal this court’s decision dismissing his appeal. A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within 30 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 that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 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. Moreover, this court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal of its own opinion. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 66.1 (Court of Criminal Appeals may review a court of appeals’ decision in a criminal case). Because this appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction. Even if we were to treat appellant’s appeal as a motion for rehearing, it is untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 49.1. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Christopher. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 2
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.
