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.

Taylor K. Durant v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-09-00266-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 6, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Taylor K. Durant appealed his misdemeanor conviction for driving while intoxicated, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas dismissed the appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction. Durant was sentenced on April 1, 2009, after a jury found him guilty, with a sentence of ten days in county jail, a $1,000 fine, and recommended community supervision. He filed a motion for a new trial on April 30, 2009, and his notice of appeal on July 29, 2009. The court determined that a timely notice of appeal is essential for jurisdiction, and since Durant's notice was filed after the June 30, 2009 deadline, it was considered untimely. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, stating it could not address the merits due to the jurisdictional issue, and also denied a related motion to supplement the reporter's record as moot.

Legal Issues Addressed

Consequences of Untimely Appeal

Application: An untimely notice of appeal results in the court's inability to address the merits of the case and leads to dismissal.

Reasoning: Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, stating it could not address the merits due to the jurisdictional issue.

Jurisdiction and Timeliness of Notice of Appeal

Application: The court requires a timely notice of appeal to establish jurisdiction; failure to meet the deadline results in dismissal.

Reasoning: The court determined that a timely notice of appeal is essential for jurisdiction, and since Durant's notice was filed after the June 30, 2009 deadline, it was considered untimely.

Mootness of Supplementing the Record

Application: When an appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, any motions related to supplementing the record become moot.

Reasoning: The court...also denied a related motion to supplement the reporter's record as moot.