Bobby Edward Miller v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 173rd District Court of Henderson County

Annotate this Case

NO. 12-04-00152-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BOBBY EDWARD MILLER,   ' APPEAL FROM THE 173RD

APPELLANT

V.   ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   ' HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and sentence was imposed on March 18, 2004. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court unless a motion for new trial is timely filed. Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. Id. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial, and his notice of appeal should have been filed on or before April 19, 2004. However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until April 23, 2004. Moreover, Appellant did not file a timely motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal as authorized by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.

On May 4, 2004, this Court notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.2 and 37.2, that the clerk=s record did not show the jurisdiction of this Court, and it gave him until May 14, 2004 to correct the defect. Appellant has failed to respond to our notice or otherwise demonstrate the jurisdiction of this Court. Because this Court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as provided by Rule 26.3, the appeal

 

must be dismissed. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered May 19, 2004.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

[COMMENT1]

[COMMENT1]J.11 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION - Vanilla

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.