Rodrigo Pena, Ex parte, 04-96-00905-CR

Decision Date29 January 1997
Docket NumberNo. 04-96-00905-CR,04-96-00905-CR
Citation940 S.W.2d 260
PartiesEx parte Rodrigo PENA, Appellant.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Arnulfo Ortiz, Cavazos & Ortiz, San Antonio, for appellant.

J.W. Johnson, Jr., District Attorney, Sonora, for appellee.

Before HARDBERGER, C.J., and STONE and GREEN, JJ.

STONE, Justice.

Appellant, Rodrigo Pena, appeals the trial court's denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. Because Pena's notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days after the appealable order was signed, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Pena filed an application for writ of habeas corpus requesting that his indictment for possession of a controlled substance be dismissed pursuant to TEX.CODE OF CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 32.01 (Vernon 1989) (limiting the time for returning indictments). On September 12, 1996, the trial court denied the requested relief.

Pena filed his notice of appeal on October 25, 1996, more than thirty days after the appealable order was signed. He did not file a motion for extension of time. Concerned that we lacked jurisdiction under the filing deadline of TEX.R.APP. P 41(b), 1 this court issued a show cause order to which Pena timely responded.

Pena argues that his appeal should not be governed by rule 41 for "ordinary appeals." Instead, it should be governed by the "fast track procedures" provided by TEX.R.APP. P 44 for "appeals in habeas corpus and bail." While rule 44 addresses timetables for the appellate record and submission before the appellate court, it does not address the filing deadline for the notice of appeal.

"A signed order denying relief on habeas corpus is an appealable order regulated by the general rules requiring notice of appeal in criminal cases." Luciano v. State, 906 S.W.2d 523, 526 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (Clinton, J., concurring) (referring to TEX.R.APP. P 41(b)). "Otherwise[,] appellate procedure on habeas corpus is provided in TRAP Rule 44." Id. Thus, the timetable for the notice of appeal begins on the day the order denying habeas corpus relief is signed, and the notice of appeal is due thirty days thereafter. See Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 109-10 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (explaining that post-conviction writs of habeas corpus are exempt from this rule). If the notice of appeal is not timely filed and a motion for extension of time is not granted, then we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).

Pena did not file his notice of appeal thirty days after the appealable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ex parte Shumake
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 1997
    ...record and submission before the appellate court. It does not even address the filing deadline for the notice of appeal. See Ex parte Pena, 940 S.W.2d 260, 261 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1997, no The rule, not an enactment of the Legislature, does not itself purport to establish in plain and un......
  • Ex Parte Gage, No. 04-03-00680-CR (Tex. App. 11/26/2003), 04-03-00680-CR.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 26, 2003
    ...on the day the order denying bond is signed, and the notice of appeal is due thirty days thereafter. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2; see Ex parte Pena, 940 S.W.2d 260, 261 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.). In this case, the order denying bond was signed July 29, 2003, but the notice of appeal wa......
  • Gerjets v. Davila
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 4, 2003
    ... ...         On September 21, 2001, Davila obtained an ex-parte turnover order and temporary restraining order from the 107th District ... ...
  • Ex parte Brew, 04-97-00464-CR
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 20, 1997
    ...31st order until after the expiration of the thirty-day time limit for perfection of this appeal. See TEX.R.APP. P. 41(b)(1); Ex parte Pena, 940 S.W.2d 260, 261 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1997, no Brew argues that the magistrate's March 14th order became final fifteen days before the trial cour......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT