Shawn L. Jackson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Annotate this Case
No. 04-98-00713-CR
Shawn L. JACKSON,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 93-CR-6308
Honorable Mike M. Machado, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 14, 1998

APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence on May 29, 1998. The motion for new trial or notice of appeal was due to be filed June 29, 1998. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on July 13, 1998. Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Appellant filed a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal and a notice of appeal on August 7, 1998. The reason given for the late filing is that the attorneys and appellant had a different understanding of the actual sentence imposed in open court than that reflected in the written judgment. No timely appeal was taken, however, and appellant is currently proceeding pro se.

This court does not have jurisdiction over a late-filed appeal. Appellant is actually seeking habeas corpus relief, complaining of his confinement following a criminal conviction. The courts of appeals have no jurisdiction for felony post-conviction writs of habeas corpus. Post-conviction writs of habeas corpus must be filed in the court of conviction, but made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 3 (Vernon Supp. 1998).

Appellant was ORDERED to show cause why this application should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. His trial attorney responded with an affidavit establishing these facts and conceded that this court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

Return to
4th Court of Appeals Opinions

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.