Shaunna Lynn Shaw v. The State of Texas Appeal from 71st District Court of Harrison County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-24-00022-CR SHAUNNA LYNN SHAW, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-0102X Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION Shaunna Lynn Shaw filed an untimely notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment convicting her of possession of a controlled substance and sentencing her to sixteen months’ confinement in state jail. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The trial court imposed sentence in this matter on January 4, 2024, and Shaw did not file a motion for new trial. As a result, Shaw’s notice of appeal was due on or before February 5, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Shaw did not file her notice of appeal until February 6, 2024, making it one day late. Consequently, Shaw’s attempt to appeal her conviction in this matter was untimely. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam). By letter dated February 8, 2024, we notified Shaw that her notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We gave Shaw ten days to respond to our letter and to demonstrate how we had jurisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding the noted defect. Shaw did not respond to our letter. 2 Because Shaw did not timely file her notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Charles van Cleef Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: March 8, 2024 March 11, 2024 Do Not Publish 3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.