Steve Scott Wilt v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court of Lamar County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-02-00154-CR
______________________________
STEVE SCOTT WILT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 41411
Before Morriss, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ.
Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
O P I N I O N

Steve Scott Wilt appeals his conviction by a jury for criminal trespass, a Class B misdemeanor. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 30.05(a) & (d) (Vernon Supp. 2002). The jury assessed his punishment at three months' confinement in the county jail, but recommended that the trial court suspend the imposition of his sentence and that he be placed on two years' community supervision. The trial court sentenced him accordingly.

In the same proceeding, Wilt was also convicted of evading arrest and detention and of resisting arrest. He was sentenced to 180 days' confinement for the evading arrest and detention offense and 365 days' confinement for the resisting arrest offense, but the trial court suspended the imposition of both sentences and placed him on two years' community supervision for each conviction. Wilt has also filed appeals from those convictions, which we address in separate opinions.

The record shows the trial court pronounced sentence May 1, 2002. Wilt filed a motion for new trial May 31, 2002. Rule 26.2(a)(2) requires the notice of appeal to be filed "within 90 days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial." Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2).

The motion for new trial was timely, see Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a), making the notice of appeal due by July 30, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on August 14, 2002. Therefore, the notice of appeal is untimely, and this Court is without jurisdiction over the appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). (1)

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

 

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

 

Date Submitted: September 26, 2002

Date Decided: September 27, 2002

 

Do Not Publish

1. In Olivo, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted the denial of a meaningful appeal because of ineffective assistance of counsel is a proper ground for habeas corpus relief. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2001).