Robert Jones v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

Annotate this Case
lee, elmer edward v. state NO. 12-03-00431-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT JONES,

 
APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of the offense of aggravated robbery. On May 4, 1994, punishment was assessed at fifty years of imprisonment. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 7, 1994. Appellant's notice of appeal was not received by this Court until December 22, 2003.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court unless a motion for new trial is timely filed. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before June 3, 1994. However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until June 7, 1994. Moreover, Appellant did not file a timely motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal as authorized by Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.

On December 22, 2003, this court notified Appellant pursuant to Rule 26.2 and Rule 37.2, that the clerk's record does not show the jurisdiction of this court, and it gave him until January 5, 2004 to correct the defect. The deadline for responding to this court's notice has expired, and Appellant has neither responded to our notice or demonstrated the jurisdiction of this court. Because this court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as provided by Rule 26.3, the appeal must be dismissed. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered January 14, 2004.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Griffith, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

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.