MICHAEL GOODE v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from County Court of Lavaca County

Annotate this Case
NUMBER 13-07-279-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_______________________________________________________

MICHAEL GOODE, Appellant,

 
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

_______________________________________________________

 
On appeal from the County Court
of Lavaca County, Texas.

_______________________________________________________

 
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, MICHAEL GOODE, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court of Lavaca County, Texas. Sentence in this cause was imposed on March 27, 2007. No timely motion for new trial was filed. The notice of appeal was due to be filed on April 26, 2007, but was not filed until April 27, 2007. Said notice of appeal is untimely filed. Appellant filed an untimely motion to permit late filing of the notice of appeal on May 17, 2007.

Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 provides that the court of appeals may grant an extension of time for filing notice of appeal if such notice is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed and within the same period a motion is filed in the court of appeals reasonably explaining the need for such extension. Appellant failed to file his notice of appeal and motion requesting an extension of time within such period.

The Court, having considered the documents on file, appellant's failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant's untimely motion, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant's untimely motion to permit late filing of notice of appeal is dismissed. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 7th day of June, 2007.

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.