Mike Mendoza Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 262nd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued August 2, 2022 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-21-00534-CR ——————————— MIKE MENDOZA JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 952290 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Mike Mendoza Jr., attempts to appeal from the district court’s November 10, 2020 order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction DNA testing.1 The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because appellant’s notice of appeal filed on September 29, 2021 was untimely. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. An appeal from the denial of a motion for DNA testing is treated “in the same manner as an appeal of any other criminal matter, except that if the convicted person was convicted in a capital case and was sentenced to death, the appeal is a direct appeal to the court of criminal appeals.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 64.05.2 Consequently, to appeal an order denying a motion for post-conviction DNA testing, an appellant must file a timely notice of appeal. See Swearingen v. State, 189 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Here, appellant’s notice of appeal was due thirty days after the trial court denied appellant’s motion for post-conviction DNA testing. See TEX. R. APP. P 26.2(a)(1). “A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction.” Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d 39, 43–44 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). If an appeal is not timely filed, then a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits 1 Appellant was convicted on July 23, 2003 of the offense of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Our Court affirmed appellant’s conviction in 2004. See Mendoza v. State, No. 01-03-00783-CR, 2004 WL 2538280 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 10, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 2 The stated exception does not apply in this case because appellant was not convicted in a capital case and sentenced to death. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 64.05. 2 of the appeal and can take no action other than dismissal of the appeal. Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Appellant’s September 29, 2021 notice of appeal was untimely filed over ten months after the trial court’s November 10, 2020 ruling and, thus, failed to vest our Court with jurisdiction. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Hightower. 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.
