Charles Haight v. State of Texas--Appeal from 81st Judicial District Court of La Salle County

00-00498 00-00499 & 00-00500 Haight v State of Texas.wpd Nos. 04-00-00498-CR; 04-00-00499-CR & 04-00-00500-CR
Charles HAIGHT,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 81st/218th Judicial District Courts, LaSalle County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 99-09-00067-CRL; 99-09-00068-CRL & 99-09-00069-CRL
Honorable Henry Schuble, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. L pez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 27, 2000

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence in each of these causes on April 11, 2000. Appellant's notice of appeal was due to be filed in each cause on July 10, 2000. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on July 25, 2000. Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in each cause on July 28, 2000, and he filed a motion for extension of time in each appeal on July 27, 2000. The postmark on the letter sent to this court containing the notice of appeal and motion for extension of time is dated July 26, 2000.

A late notice of appeal may be considered timely so as to invoke a court of appeals' jurisdiction if (1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing, (2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and (3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). When a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen-day period but no timely motion for extension of time is filed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction. Id. In this case, neither the notice of appeal nor the motion for extension of time was timely filed.

On September 1, 2000, we ordered appellant to show cause why his appeals should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant's attorney responded to our order, stating that he agreed with our factual assertions and acknowledged that we are without authority to exercise jurisdiction over appellant's appeals. However, appellant's attorney requested that we abate the appeals pending the trial court's consideration of appellant's petition for habeas corpus. We do not have jurisdiction to grant this request. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (appellate court can take no action with respect to untimely appeal other than to dismiss the appeal). Appellant's attorney is advised that in the event the record filed in this appeal is needed in a future appellate proceeding in this court involving these causes, this court will entertain a motion to transfer the record from these appeals to the new appeals.

These appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH