Ronald Darnell Cephus v. State

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 6, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NOS. 14-14-00001-CR &

14-14-00002-CR

RONALD DARNELL CEPHUS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 998670 & 1009435

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, a pro se inmate incarcerated in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed a notice of appeal on November 25, 2013, in an attempt to appeal an order signed by the trial court on October 3, 2013, denying his pro se motions related to cause numbers 998670 and 1009435 in the 232nd District Court in Harris County. Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, and we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the trial court’s order was signed. A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after an appealable order is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal, and it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id.

Accordingly, the appeals are ordered dismissed.1

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Wise.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).