Javier Vega v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County

Annotate this Case
lee, elmer edward v. state

  NO. 12-07-00296-CR

NO. 12-07-00297-CR

NO. 12-07-00298-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAVIER VEGA, APPEALS FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

These appeals are being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In three separate cause numbers, Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, obstruction or retaliation, and escape while arrested or confined for a felony. Sentence was imposed on June 25, 2007.

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. Therefore, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before July 25, 2007. However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until August 10, 2007, and did not file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.

 

On August 14, 2007, this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Rules 26.2 and 37.2, that the clerk s record did not show the jurisdiction of this court, and it gave him until August 24, 2007 to correct the defect. The deadline has now passed, and Appellant did not furnish information showing the jurisdiction of this court or otherwise respond to this court s notice.

Because this court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as provided by Rule 26.3, the appeals must be dismissed. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered August 31, 2007.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

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.