Dan Daniel v. The State of TexasAppeal from 87th District Court of Freestone County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-14-00108-CR DAN DANIEL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 87th District Court Freestone County, Texas Trial Court No. 13-022-CR MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 16, 2014, Dan Daniel filed a pro se notice of appeal of his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Daniel s imposition of sentence was on October 29, 2013, and the judgment of conviction was signed the same day. Daniel s notice of appeal is untimely, and we have no jurisdiction of an untimely appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (no appellate jurisdiction where notice of appeal is untimely). Daniel also signed a waiver of his right to appeal in this case, and the trial court s certification of defendant s right to appeal in this case indicates that Daniel waived his right to appeal. This appeal is therefore dismissed.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ( A court of appeals ¦ must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal. ); Davis v. State, 205 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App. Waco 2006, no pet.). REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed April 24, 2014 Do not publish [CR25] A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment or order of this Court is rendered. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. If the appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that petition must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days after either the day the court of appeals judgment was rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by the court of appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). 1 Daniel v. State Page 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.