Martin Luis Rocha v. The State of Texas Appeal from 184th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued September 1, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00495-CR ——————————— MARTIN LUIS ROCHA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 184th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 0842389 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Martin Luis Rocha, attempts to appeal his May 9, 2001 conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal on April 8, 2016. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a letter on July 20, 2016, notifying us of the untimeliness of the notice of appeal and that we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. In a criminal case, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). The deadline may be extended to ninety days if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. See id. at 26.2(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a), (g). The deadline for filing the notice of appeal may also be extended if, within fifteen days after the date the notice of appeal is due, the appellant properly files a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. Here, the judgment of conviction was signed on May 9, 2001. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on April 8, 2016. A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke an appellate court’s jurisdiction. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Because appellant untimely filed his notice of appeal, we have no jurisdiction over his appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Huddle. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 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.
