Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Marlon Keith Williams v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-97-00707-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 17, 1997; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed Marlon Keith Williams's appeal from an order revoking his community supervision for lack of jurisdiction. The underlying offense was unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and the revocation and sentencing occurred on September 5, 1997. Williams's attorney requested the reporter's record but failed to file a notice of appeal. Williams submitted a pro se notice of appeal on October 17, 1997, eleven days late. Although the deadline for requesting an extension had not passed, his new attorney did not seek one. The appellate rules indicate that while a court may suspend rules to expedite decisions, this does not allow alteration of appeal timelines in criminal cases. Citing the precedent set in Olivo v. State, the Court of Appeals concluded that without compliance with procedural rules for perfecting an appeal, it lacked jurisdiction to address the case. Consequently, the court emphasized that jurisdiction must be legally invoked and cannot be created through rule suspension. Jurisdiction must be legally invoked according to appellate procedure rules, specifically addressing the implications of an untimely notice of appeal. The discussion raises questions about whether an untimely notice can invoke jurisdiction to suspend rules 26.2 and 26.3 concerning the timelines for perfecting an appeal. Rule 2 allows for the suspension of these rules under certain conditions; however, the text questions if the recent amendment of rule 2 overruled the precedent set in Olivo, which maintains that jurisdiction cannot be created where none exists. Consequently, based on Olivo, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Criminal Appeals is invited to reconsider Olivo in light of the recent Verburgt ruling, which implies that a motion for extension of time may be necessary when an appeal bond is filed late but within the extension period. The ruling in Olivo stated that without a motion for extension filed within the designated timeframe, a court lacks jurisdiction to act on the appeal, reinforcing the strict requirements for invoking appellate jurisdiction.