Carl Lopez Anchondo v. The State of Texas Appeal from 50th District Court of Knox County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed August 3, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-17-00195-CR ___________ CARL LOPEZ ANCHONDO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 50th District Court Knox County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 3493 MEMORANDUM OPINION Carl Lopez Anchondo, Appellant, has filed an untimely notice of appeal in this cause. Appellant attempts to appeal his conviction for the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. We dismiss the appeal. The documents on file in this case indicate that Appellant’s sentence was imposed on June 7, 1993, and that his notice of appeal was filed in the district clerk’s office on July 17, 2017. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a), a notice of appeal is due to be filed either (1) within thirty days after the date that sentence is imposed in open court or (2) if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial, within ninety days after the date that sentence is imposed in open court. A notice of appeal must be in writing and filed with the clerk of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). The documents on file in this court reflect that Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the trial court more than twenty-four years after Appellant’s sentence was imposed. The notice of appeal was, therefore, untimely. Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). When the appeal was filed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the appeal may be dismissed. We requested that Appellant respond to our letter and show grounds to continue. Appellant filed a response in which he asserts that his appeal was brought in good faith and in which he presents three substantive grounds as good cause to continue this appeal. We have considered Appellant’s response; however, we are without authority to proceed with this appeal. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM August 3, 2017 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 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.
