You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Jason Ratcliff v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 04-02-00653-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 9, 2002; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Jason Ratcliff, the appellant, was sentenced to a felony on June 26, 2002, following a guilty plea in the 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, under Trial Court No. 2002-CR-0066. He did not file a motion for a new trial, and thus, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal was July 26, 2002, with an extension deadline of August 12, 2002. Ratcliff submitted a general notice of appeal and a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal on September 17, 2002. The court determined these filings were untimely, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction to consider the appeal, in accordance with precedent set in Olivo v. State. Furthermore, the notice of appeal did not specify an allowable basis for appealing a plea-bargained felony conviction, violating Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Consequently, the court dismissed both the appeal and the motion for leave to file a late notice for lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appeal of Plea-bargained Felony Conviction

Application: The notice of appeal failed to specify an allowable basis for appealing a plea-bargained felony conviction, leading to dismissal.

Reasoning: The notice of appeal did not specify an allowable basis for appealing a plea-bargained felony conviction, violating Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Jurisdiction and Timeliness of Notice of Appeal

Application: The court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal due to the untimeliness of the notice of appeal and the motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal.

Reasoning: The court determined these filings were untimely, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction to consider the appeal, in accordance with precedent set in Olivo v. State.