Bennie Lee Nevels, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 82nd District Court of Falls County
Annotate this CaseIN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-08-00246-CR
Bennie Lee Nevels, Jr.,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 82nd District Court
Falls County, Texas
Trial Court No. 7868
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Bennie Lee Nevels, Jr. brings this appeal from an order denying his motion for postconviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court signed the order Nevels challenges on April 9, 2008. Nevels filed his notice of appeal by mailing it to the Clerk of this Court on July 14. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b). We will dismiss the appeal because it is untimely.
Article 64.05 provides in pertinent part that an appeal of an adverse order under Chapter 64 is to a court of appeals in the same manner as an appeal of any other criminal matter. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.05 (Vernon 2006). Thus, an appealing party under article 64.05 must file a notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the order to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the court of appeals. See Swearingen v. State, 189 S.W.3d 779, 780-81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (citing Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a)(1)).
In response to a notice from the Clerk, Nevels explained that he did not file his notice of appeal sooner because he did not know that the trial court had signed the order denying his motion. In civil cases, Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(4) extends the deadline for the filing of the notice of appeal when a party does not receive notice of the judgment within twenty days. Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(4). However, there is no comparable provision for criminal cases.
Nevels filed his notice of appeal more than ninety days after entry of the order he is challenging. Therefore, because the notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss the appeal. Id.
FELIPE REYNA
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed August 13, 2008
Do not publish
[CR25]
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.