Jose Antonio Martinez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 290th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-04-00022-CR
Jose Antonio MARTINEZ,
Appellant
v.
STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002-CR-3628
Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding

Per Curiam

Sitting: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and filed: March 3, 2004

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On January 27, 2004, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant's sentence was imposed on February 10, 2003. A motion for new trial or notice of appeal was due March 12, 2003. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. No motion for new trial was filed. (1) A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due in this court March 27, 2003, see Tex. R. App. P. 41(b)(2), but no such motion was filed. The notice of appeal was not filed until January 8, 2004. In his response to our order, appellant states that he did not know his court appointed attorney had not filed a motion for new trial or a notice of appeal. He requests an extension of time to file his motion for new trial, his notice of appeal, and his appellate brief.

Because the notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (explaining that both the notice of appeal and the motion for extension of time must be filed within the fifteen-day extension); see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (explaining that the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs out-of-time appeals from felony convictions). Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we have no jurisdiction to grant appellant any of the relief he seeks. Accordingly, appellant's motions are denied. We dismiss Jose Antonio Martinez's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1. A motion to correct the judgment was filed August 25, 2003. Appellant states this motion was not intended to be a motion for new trial. Even if we interpreted it as such, because it was filed late, it would not extend the appellate timetable.