Opinion

Virdis Bonner appeals his conviction for assault on a public servant, enhanced by a prior felony conviction. The jury assessed his punishment at ten years' imprisonment, which the trial court ordered to run consecutively with a sentence Bonner was serving in a federal prison. The trial court sentenced Bonner on February 20, 2002.

Bonner did not file a motion for new trial; therefore, his Notice of Appeal was due by March 22, 2002, or with a proper request for an extension, by April 8, 2002. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. Bonner filed his Notice of Appeal pro se on April 2, 2002, and the record does not show he filed a request for an extension. There is nothing in the record showing the mailbox rule applies to make the Notice of Appeal timely. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b).

Therefore, because Bonner did not file a timely notice of appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). ⁽¹⁾ The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Ben Z. Grant

Justice

Date Submitted: April 26, 2002

Date Decided: April 26, 2002

Do Not Publish

1. In Olivo, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals noted the denial of a meaningful appeal because of ineffective assistance of counsel is a proper ground for habeas corpus relief. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2002).