 |
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto 
|
|
||
|
Information |
Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLawDate: 10-12-2018 Case Style: Andrew Colby Livingston v. The State of TexasCase Number: 02-18-00381-CR Judge: Bonnie Sudderth Court: Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth Plaintiff's Attorney: John D. Warren Defendant's Attorney: Emma Guzman Ramon Description:  Appellant Andrew Colby Livingston attempts to appeal his conviction for continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02 (West Supp. 2018). Appellant was convicted on July 11, 2018, making his notice of appeal due August 10, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). He did not file a notice of appeal until August 24, 2018. By letter dated August 28, 2018, we notified Livingston of our concern that we may not have jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and requested a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. We warned that a failure to do so could result in our dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. On September 5, 2018, Livingston’s counsel filed a motion to extend time to file a late notice of appeal. But see Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that the failure to file a motion for extension of time within the 15 days of the deadline for the notice of appeal deprives the reviewing court of jurisdiction). In it, she asserted that she was confident that a motion for new trial was e-filed on August 6, 2018, thereby extending the time for filing a notice of appeal, but that she later realized that the motion was not accepted or filed by the Cooke County District Clerk. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2), 26.3. By letter dated September 13, 2018, we requested that Livingston’s counsel provide us with confirmation of service of the motion for new trial from the electronic filing manager or other confirmation that the motion for new trial was tendered to the electronic 3 filing manager. See generally, Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(c)(4), (6). Livingston’s counsel filed a response but it did not include any such confirmation. Outcome: We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's Experts: Defendant's Experts: Comments: |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
