Michelle Rose Nurnberg v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 396th District Court of Tarrant County

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-02-510-CR

MICHELLE ROSE NURNBERG APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION(1)
------------

Michelle Rose Nurnberg appeals from the trial court's revocation of her appeal bond. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Nurnberg's conviction for solicitation of capital murder was affirmed by this court on September 12, 2002. Nurnberg v. State, No. 2-01-306-CR, slip op. at 4 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth September 12, 2002, pet. filed). She then filed a petition for discretionary review, which remains pending before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. On October 14, 2002, the trial court held Nurnberg's appeal bond insufficient, thereby revoking her bond, and issued a warrant for her arrest. On November 26, 2002, appellant filed an emergency motion for a bond hearing or bond reinstatement, which the trial court denied. Nurnberg filed her notice of appeal on December 11, 2002.

Nurnberg's notice of appeal was due within 30 days after the trial court determined her appeal bond was insufficient and revoked her bond. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). She did not file her notice of appeal until December 11, 2002, which was after the expiration of the time period for filing the notice of appeal.

On December 31, 2002, this court notified Nurnberg's counsel by letter of its concern that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and stated that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless Nurnberg or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. No response has been filed.

The failure to file a timely notice of appeal, or a timely motion for extension of time within 15 days after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal, deprives this court of jurisdiction over the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a), 26.3; Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (applying predecessor to rules 25 and 26); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (stating that Olivo is still valid after 1997 changes to appellate rules). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

PANEL D: WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and DAY, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

[Delivered February 13, 2003]

1. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.