Richard Gonzales v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-10-00056-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS RICHARD GONZALES, APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 241ST 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 arson, and sentence was imposed on December 16, 2009. 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. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2). Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, Appellant s notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before January 15, 2010. However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until February 24, 2010 and did not file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3 (appellate court may extend time for filing notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after deadline for filing notice of appeal, appellant files notice of appeal in trial court and motion complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) in appellate court). On February 26, 2010, this court notified Appellant that his notice of appeal was untimely and that there was no timely motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal as permitted by rule 26.3. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would 1 be dismissed unless, on or before March 8, 2010, the information filed in this appeal was amended to show the jurisdiction of this court. The deadline has passed, and Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this court or otherwise responded to its February 26, 2010 notice. 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, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Opinion delivered March 10, 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 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.
