Graham, Nolan Dunte v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 228th District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Dismissed and Opinion filed July 25, 2002

Dismissed and Opinion filed July 25, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00687-CR

____________

NOLAN DUNTE GRAHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 878,834

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N


On November 30, 2001, appellant pled guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child. The trial court deferred a finding of guilty and placed appellant on community supervision for eight years. On January 25, 2002, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt alleging appellant had failed to abide by the terms and conditions of his community supervision. On April 16, 2002, appellant pled true to the State=s allegations and the trial court granted the motion to adjudicate, found appellant guilty, and sentenced appellant to thirteen years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Institutional Division and a $1,000.00 fine. No motion for new trial was filed. Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed until June 13, 2002.

A defendant=s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See id.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed July 25, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Fowler, and Edelman.

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

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.