Michael Scott Baughman v. The State of TexasAppeal from 5th District Court of Cass County (memorandum opinion by chief justice iii morriss)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-13-00197-CR MICHAEL SCOTT BAUGHMAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 5th District Court Cass County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-F-00091 Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Scott Baughman attempts to appeal from a judgment adjudicating him guilty of retaliation and sentencing him to ten years confinement. Baughman s sentence was imposed July 3, 2013. His motion for new trial was filed August 5, 2013, and his notice of appeal was filed September 5, 2013. The issue before us is whether Baughman timely filed his notice of appeal. We conclude that he did not and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. A timely-filed notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Rule 26.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure prescribes the time period in which a notice of appeal must be filed to perfect an appeal in a criminal case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). A criminal defendant s notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days after the date sentence is imposed or suspended or within ninety days after sentencing if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. Id.; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. In this case, Baughman s motion for new trial was filed thirty-four days after the date sentence was imposed, making it untimely. As a result, Baughman did not trigger the ninety-day filing period that accompanies a timely-filed motion for new trial, and his notice of appeal was due within thirty days of the date sentence was imposed. Since Baughman s notice of appeal was not filed within this thirty-day window, it was untimely, and we are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. 2 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: November 13, 2013 November 14, 2013 Do Not Publish 3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.
