Mary S. Roberts v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i
i
i
i
i
i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00393-CR
Mary S. ROBERTS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2006-CR-6404A
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting:
Alma L. López, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 27, 2008
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
The trial court imposed sentence in the underlying case on February 21, 2008. Because
appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on March 20, 2008, the notice of appeal was due to be
filed on May 21, 2008. TEX . R. APP . P. 26.2(a)(2); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1993) (time limit for perfecting appeal from judgment of conviction begins to run on day
sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, not on day written judgment is signed). A motion
for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due within the fifteen-day grace period, which
04-08-00393-CR
expired on June 5, 2008. TEX . R. APP . P. 26.3. Appellant filed her notice of appeal in the trial court
on May 30, 2008, but did not file a motion for extension of time.
On June 26, 2008, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, noting “When a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen-day
grace period but no timely motion for extension of time is filed, the appellate court lacks
jurisdiction.” Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellant responded
by requesting that this court construe her Statement of Inability to Afford Counsel, which was filed
on May 20, 2008, as a timely notice of appeal citing cases from other appellate courts as support.
Noticeably absent from appellant’s response was any citation to this court’s prior decision in Rivera
v. State, 940 S.W.2d 148, 149 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). In Rivera, we expressly
rejected a request to construe a pauper’s oath and request for appellate counsel as a timely notice of
appeal. 940 S.W.2d at 149. Although appellant cited Palma v. State, 76 S.W.3d 638, 641 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref’d), in her response, appellant failed to acknowledge that the
Corpus Christi court distinguished our decision in Rivera on the basis that the appellant in Palma
filed a letter with the trial court expressing his desire to appeal and did not seek to rely on a request
for appointment of appellate counsel. Palma, 76 S.W.3d at 642. Appellant’s attorney is reminded
that the Standards for Appellate Conduct adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals state that one of the lawyers’ duties to the court is to “advise the Court
of controlling legal authorities, including those adverse to their position.”
As noted in Rivera, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals “has specifically rejected [a]
‘liberal policy’ when the perfecting instrument is untimely.” 940 S.W.2d at 149. Because
appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The
-2-
04-08-00393-CR
appellant may pursue an out-of-time appeal by filing a writ of habeas corpus. See TEX . CODE CRIM .
PROC. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);
Rivera, 940 S.W.2d at 149.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-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.
