Samuel Ruiz Gonzales v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00084-CR Samuel Ruiz GONZALES, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 1983CR0095 Honorable Kristina Escalona, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 4, 2024 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant, Samuel Ruiz Gonzales, attempts to appeal his October 24, 1986, conviction for the offense of burglary of a building. Because the trial court imposed the sentence against Gonzales on October 24, 1986, a notice of appeal or a motion for new trial was due to be filed on November 24, 1986. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 21.4(a), 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on December 9, 1986. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Gonzales, however, did not file a notice of appeal until February 4, 2025—nearly 40 years late.

04-25-00084-CR

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26 is essential to vest a court of appeals with jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Without a timely filed notice of appeal, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of an appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210.

Here, Gonzales’s notice of appeal was filed nearly forty years after the deadline for filing his notice of appeal. As a result, on March 11, 2025, we ordered Gonzales to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Gonzales did not file a response.

Because the notice of appeal was untimely, Gonzales failed to invoke our jurisdiction in this case, and we lack jurisdiction to take any action other than dismiss this appeal. See Castillo, 369 S.W.3d at 198; Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522–26. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-