James Arthur Jordan v. The State of Texas Appeal from 183rd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued October 13, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00343-CR ——————————— JAMES ARTHUR JORDAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 183rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1303251 MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 5, 2016, appellant James Arthur Jordan filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s October 10, 2012 judgment adjudicating guilt and sentencing appellant to six years’ incarceration for the offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. We dismiss the appeal. In a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal is due within thirty days after sentence is imposed in open court or the trial court enters an appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to ninety days after the sentence is imposed if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2). The time for filing a notice of appeal may be further extended if, within fifteen days of deadline for filing the notice of appeal, appellant files the notice of appeal and a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b). TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. The trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt and sentencing appellant to six years’ imprisonment for the offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon was signed on October 10, 2012. Appellant’s notice of appeal filed on April 5, 2016, almost three-and-a-half years after the judgment was signed, is untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2. This Court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as provided by Rule 26.3. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, we have no basis for jurisdiction over this appeal. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 2 522. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd. Do not publish.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.
