Billy Roy Huse v. State

Huse-BR v. State IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-95-257-CR      BILLY ROY HUSE,                                                                                               Appellant      v.      THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                                               Appellee From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court # 00-5-25,855                                                                                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION                                                                                                            Billy Roy Huse attempts to appeal from his conviction for murder and the assessed punishment of life imprisonment. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(2) (Vernon 1994). The conviction and punishment followed a negotiated guilty plea. Because we find that our jurisdiction was not properly invoked, we dismiss his appeal.       On July 6, 1995, Huse pleaded guilty in exchange for a recommendation from the State that his punishment be assessed at life imprisonment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 1995). The court admonished him, accepted his plea, and imposed the agreed punishment. Id. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 1995). On August 25, some fifty days after his sentence was imposed, Huse filed a notice of appeal and a motion seeking to obtain the trial court's permission to prosecute an appeal.       After examining the record, we have determined that Huse's notice of appeal in this cause was due on August 7. Tex. R. App. P. 41(b)(1). He did not file a written notice of appeal until August 25. Thus, his notice of appeal was eighteen days too late. See id. Absent a timely, written notice of appeal, we do not have jurisdiction over a criminal appeal. Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Reyes v. State, 883 S.W.2d 291, 292-93 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, no pet.).       We notified Huse of this defect on November 9. Tex. R. App. P. 56(a), 83. He has not taken steps to amend the record in response. Id. Thus, "the transcript does not show the jurisdiction of the court, and . . . after notice it [has] not [been] amended." Id. Therefore, "the appeal shall be dismissed." Id. 56(a).       Because Huse failed to invoke our jurisdiction, we dismiss his appeal. Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Morrison v. State, 896 S.W.2d 392, 393 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, no pet.).                                                                                PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Thomas,       Justice Cummings, and       Justice Vance Dismissed for want of jurisdiction Opinion delivered and filed November 22, 1995 Do not publish le='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in'>(1)  why Currie has failed to file the reporter’s records for these appeals;  (2)  Currie’s current contact information, so the Clerk of this Court will have an address and a telephone number by which she can communicate with Currie;  (3)  a date certain[3] within a reasonable period of time when the reporter’s record will be filed in each appeal; and  (4)  whether any sanctions should be imposed on Currie.             The trial court shall: (1) conduct the hearing within twenty-one (21) days after the date of this Order; (2) prepare any necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (3) sign a written order consistent with the requirements of this Order.           The district clerk shall file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of (1) the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and (2) the trial court’s order with the Clerk of this Court within thirty-five (35) days after the date of this Order.            Unless the parties waive the making of a reporter’s record in the abatement hearing, the trial court’s current official court reporter is ordered to prepare and file a supplemental reporter’s record of the abatement hearing with the Clerk of this Court within thirty-five (35) days after the date of this Order.                                                                                                PER CURIAM             Before Chief Justice Gray,            Justice Reyna, and            Justice Davis Order issued and filed June 2, 2010 Do not publish          [1]              The Clerk mailed this notice to Currie by regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested. Currie failed to claim the letter sent to her by certified mail. [2]              These are the only reporters’ records which Currie is presently responsible for filing in this Court.  [3]              These dates should be set sequentially so that the oldest record (Cooks) is filed first.