Willie Lea Wright v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 337th District Court of Harris County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued October 13, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________ NO. 01-11-00663-CR ____________ WILLIE LEA WRIGHT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 337th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 578264 MEMORANDUM OPINION In November 13, 1991, appellant Willie Lea Wright was convicted of the offense of felony theft of property. He did not appeal his conviction at that time. On July 18, 2011, appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a document purporting to be a notice of appeal. Under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal was due on or before December 13, 1991. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a).1 Appellant filed his notice of appeal twenty years later, on July 18, 2011. A notice of appeal that complies with the Rules of Appellate Procedure is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The court of criminal appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion for extension of time, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 42.3(a), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 1 The same deadlines applied under former Rule 41(b)(1), which was applicable at the time of appellant s conviction. 2 To the degree that appellant seeks a copy of his trial court records pertaining to his 1991 conviction, that conviction was never appealed to this Court and this Court does not maintain those records. 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.
