Cedric Damar Ford v. State of Texas, No. 06-24-00061-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 21, 2024). · Go Syfert
Search
Cedric Damar Ford v. State of Texas, No. 06-24-00061-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 21, 2024). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cedric Damar Ford
v.
the State of Texas
06-24-00061-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
May 21, 2024.
Unpublished opinion
Published
In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00061-CR

CEDRIC DAMAR FORD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 202nd District Court
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 19F1203-202

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Cedric Damar Ford has filed an untimely notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. [1] We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The judgment of conviction in this matter indicates that Ford’s sentence was imposed on March 7, 2024, and Ford did not file a motion for new trial, making his notice of appeal due on or before April 8, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Ford’s notice of appeal was filed on April 9, 2024, one day beyond the April 8 deadline. Consequently, Ford’s attempt to appeal his conviction in this matter was untimely.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam).

We notified Ford by letter that his notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We gave Ford ten days to respond to our letter and to demonstrate how we had jurisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding the noted defect. While Ford responded, through counsel, he did not provide a sufficient basis for retaining this matter on our docket.

Because Ford has not timely perfected his appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. [2]

Jeff Rambin Justice Date Submitted: May 20, 2024 Date Decided: May 21, 2024 Do Not Publish

2 Based on our disposition of this appeal, we deny Ford’s pending motion to abate the appeal to allow him time to seek leave from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to file an out-of-time appeal. As the Court of Criminal Appeals stated in Olivo, “When a notice of appeal, but no motion for extension of time, is filed within the fifteen- day period, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.” Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523. Our disposition will not foreclose Ford’s ability to seek leave to file an out-of-time appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals.