Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-19-2021
Case Style:
Richard Lares v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 04-20-00597-CR
Judge: PER CURIAM
Sitting:
Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Court: Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Joe D. Gonzales
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
San Antonio, Texas - Criminal defense attorney represented Richard Lares with anAggravated Sexual Assault charge.
On November 27, 2020, appellant Richard Lares filed a pro se notice of appeal stating he
was appealing “a Final Judgment of Conviction with a[n] ‘Amended’ stamp” on it that was signed
on August 11, 2020. See Turner v. State, 529 S.W.3d 157, 158 (Tex. 2017) (deeming pro se
inmates pleading as filed at the time the prison authorities duly receive the document to be mailed).
On January 19, 2021, the district clerk filed the clerk’s record, which established that pursuant to
a plea bargain agreement, Lares pled nolo contendere to aggravated sexual assault of a child, and
the trial court signed a judgment of conviction that imposed sentence on August 10, 2009. The
04-20-00597-CR
- 2 -
record also established that on August 13, 2020 and September 8, 2020, the trial court made
corrections to the judgment by signing what are styled “Amended Judgment” and “2nd Amended
Judgment.”
“A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke appellate jurisdiction.” Blanton v. State,
369 S.W.3d 894, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In absence of a timely motion for new trial, a
defendant must file a notice of appeal within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or after
the day the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2.
Outcome: Because it appeared we lacked jurisdiction to consider this appeal, we ordered Lares to file a response by February 22, 2021 showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We cautioned Lares that if he failed to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed. See id. R. 42.3(c). On January 25, 2021, Lares’s court appointed appellate attorney acknowledged this court does not have jurisdiction to consider Lares’s appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: