Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Julio Ramirez Mestas was convicted of indecency with a child, evading arrest, and failure to stop and render aid. After the jury found him guilty of indecency with a child, Mestas pleaded guilty to evading arrest and failure to stop and render aid. After Mestas was sentenced in these cases, he filed a motion for new trial and a notice of appeal in each case. The first court of appeals agreed with counsel that the appeals were without merit, granted the motions to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgments. Subsequently, Mestas filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in each case, complaining he had been denied access to the trial record and was not given the opportunity to file a pro se response. The court of criminal appeals agreed with Mestas, granted him an “out-of-time” appeal in each case, and instructed Mestas that, should he desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to see that notices of appeal were given within 30 days after the mandates of the court of criminal appeals issued. HOLDING:The court affirms the judgment of the district court. The state, in a motion to dismiss, contends that the court lacks jurisdiction over the appeals because Mestas’s notices of appeal were untimely. The court finds that the mandates issued on Feb. 18, 2004. Thus, the court holds, Mestas was required to give a notice of appeal in each case on or before March 19, 2004. Because Mestas did not attempt to do so until April 1, 2004, the court holds that it lacks jurisdiction over these appeals. The court holds that Mestas’s Feb. 16, 2004, motions for new trial did not extend the time for filing his notices of appeal. Mestas was not denied the opportunity to assert a motion for new trial. The court notes that he had, in fact, already filed motions for new trial in each case. Mestas’s complaint on application for habeas corpus was that he was denied the right to a meaningful appeal. The only relief the court of criminal appeals granted was an out-of-time appeal. Because a motion for new trial was not a remedy requested by Mestas nor granted by the court of criminal appeals, the court concludes that the motions for new trial were ineffective to extend the time for filing the notices of appeal. When an appeal is not timely perfected, the court point out that it does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal, and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. OPINION:Wright, J.; Whittington, Wright and FitzGerald, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.