Floyd Willis Wiley v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 185th District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
/**/

Opinion issued November 10, 2005

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-05-00350-CR

____________

FLOYD WILLIS WILEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 668988

MEMORANDUM OPINION

We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. On January 20, 1994, appellant, Floyd Willis Wiley, pleaded guilty to the charged offense. The trial court found appellant guilty, deferred adjudication of his guilt, and placed him on community supervision for ten years. On March 22, 1996, the trial court, on the state s motion and appellant s signed confession, adjudicated appellant s guilt and assessed punishment at 18 years confinement. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 18, 2005.

Appellant s deadline for filing a notice of appeal was April 22, 1996 because the 30th day after appellant was sentenced fell on a Sunday. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a)(1). Appellant s notice of appeal was almost nine years after the deadline. An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest the appellate court with jurisdiction to hear the case. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

In addition, the trial court s certification of the defendant s right of appeal in this case reflects that it is a plea-bargain case, and appellant has no right of appeal. An appeal must be dismissed if there is no certification in the record showing that the defendant has the right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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.