Three Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($3,535.00) United States Currency v. The State of Texas Appeal from 45th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-16-00120-CV THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($3,535.00) United States Currency, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014-CI-11848 Honorable Peter Sakai, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 29, 2016 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION The trial court signed a final judgment on July 21, 2015. Appellant, an inmate, filed a timely motion to vacate judgment or, in the alternative, modify judgment on August 20, 2015. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on October 19, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). The clerk’s record reflects that Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed until March 4, 2016. The clerk’s record also reflects that the envelope containing the notice of appeal was stamped on March 1, 2016. It therefore appears that appellant did not file a timely notice of appeal. See Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d 681, 682 (Tex. 2004) (“Consistent with the Inmate Litigation Act and Rule 5 04-16-00120-CV of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, we hold that a pro se inmate’s petition that is placed in a properly addressed and stamped envelope or wrapper is deemed filed at the moment prison authorities receive the document for mailing.”). Without a timely filed notice of appeal, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. We therefore ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has not filed a response showing that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM -2-
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.
