Donald Flint v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 202nd District Court of Bowie County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-08-00104-CR ______________________________ DONALD GENE FLINT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 202nd Judicial District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 06F0023-202 Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Donald Gene Flint appeals from his jury convictions of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and three counts of indecency with a child/sexual contact. The sentences were imposed March 6, 2008. Flint filed a motion for new trial April 15, 2008, and his notice of appeal was filed May 29, 2008. According to Rule 21.4, Flint had thirty days after the day sentence was imposed1 to file his motion for new trial. See TEX . R. APP . P. 21.4. Because the thirtieth day fell on a Saturday, Flint had until the following Monday, April 7, 2007, to file a motion for new trial. See TEX . R. APP . P. 4.1. The motion for new trial was filed on April 15.2 The motion for new trial was untimely. Flint was thus required to file his notice of appeal within thirty days of the date sentence was imposed. See TEX . R. APP . P. 26.2(a)(1). Because the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the date sentence was imposed, this appeal is untimely and we are without jurisdiction to hear this case. See TEX . R. APP . P. 21.4, 26.2(a). 1 The timetable for filing a motion for new trial or a notice of appeal begins when sentence is imposed in open court. TEX . R. APP . P. 21.4. Counsel states in the motion for new trial: "The Defendant was sentenced on March 17, 2008. This Motion, filed within the thirty-day timetable, is therefore timely." The judgment was signed March 17; however, sentence was imposed March 6, 2008. Therefore, the motion for new trial was untimely. 2 The certificate of service on the motion for new trial is also dated April 15. Therefore, the mailbox rule does not apply. See TEX . R. APP . P. 9.2(b). 2 We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: July 9, 2008 July 10, 2008 Do Not Publish 3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.
