The State of Texas v. Francisco Nieto Jr. Appeal from 216th Judicial District Court of Gillespie County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00376-CR The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Francisco NIETO Jr., Appellee From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas Trial Court No. 5952 Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 11, 2017 MOTION GRANTED; DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION This is an attempted appeal by the State of Texas from a trial court’s order granting appellee Francisco Nieto Jr.’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on federal constitutional speedy trial grounds. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.01(a) (West 2006). The order from which the State attempts to appeal was signed on May 4, 2017. Therefore, the State’s notice of appeal was due to be filed on May 24, 2017, twenty days from the date the order was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(b). However, the State did not file its notice of appeal until May 26, 2017. Moreover, the 04-17-00376-CR State did not timely file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal, which would have been due on June 8, 2017. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Because the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely filed, we ordered the State to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The State was ordered to respond by September 12, 2017, and failed to respond. Subsequently, on September 28, 2017, appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, contending the State did not timely file its notice of appeal and the State failed to respond to this court’s show cause order. Based on the foregoing, we grant the appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Do Not Publish -2-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.