Ex Parte Rocky Ennis Appeal from 461st District Court of Brazoria County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued November 17, 2020 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00089-CR ——————————— EX PARTE ROCKY ANNIS, APPELLANT On Appeal from the 461st District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 73315-A MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Rocky Annis, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order denying his application for writ of habeas corpus, signed on May 22, 2019. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on January 2, 2020. Appellee, the State of Texas, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal without a timely filed notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a); see also Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (citation omitted); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appeals of orders denying criminal habeas corpus relief also require timely notices of appeal. Ex parte Nelson, 01-17-00152-CR, 2017 WL 1149214, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ex parte Alali, No. 01-15-00796-CR, 2015 WL 6949240, at *1 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 10, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). A defendant’s notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days after the date sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or within ninety days after that date if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a); see Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Lair v. State, 321 S.W.3d 158, 159 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d). Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was due June 21, 2019. Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Lloyd and Kelly. Do not publish.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.
