Delisa Marie Russell v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 338th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued May 1, 2008 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________ NO. 01-07-01071-CR ____________ DELISA MARIE RUSSELL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 338th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1132134 MEMORANDUM OPINION We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Appellant, Delisa Marie Russell, pleaded guilty to the offense of assault on a public servant and, in accordance with her plea bargain agreement with the State the trial court sentenced her to confinement for two years. On October 31, 2007, the trial court signed a final judgment in this case. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial, and therefore the deadline for filing a notice of appeal was 30 days after sentencing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Because the thirtieth day after sentencing fell on a weekend, the deadline for filing notice of appeal was Monday, November 1, 2007. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a)(1). Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on December 5, 2007, four days after the deadline. Although the notice of appeal was filed within the 15-day time period for filing a motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal, no such motion for extension of time was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. 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); Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605-06 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot.1 1 Appellant filed a pro se document with this Court stating that she wanted to cancel her appeal. Because the document is not signed by appellant, it does not comply with the requirements for a motion to dismiss an appeal as set out in Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 42.2(a). 2 It is so ORDERED. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Alcala. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3
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.
