Carlus Lee Williams v. State, 02-17-00250-CR

In July 1999 Williams was convicted in three separate cases of unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon (third-degree felonies).
In March 2017 Williams filed pro se motions for new trial in each case, asserting newly discovered "material evidence": that the robbery conviction used to enhance his firearm offenses was not final when those offenses occurred, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him.
The trial court denied each motion for new trial in May 2017; Williams then filed notices of appeal in each case.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals notified Williams it was concerned it lacked jurisdiction because (1) any direct attack on the 1999 judgments was untimely, and (2) orders denying motions for new trial generally are not separately appealable.
Williams’ response did not show grounds to continue; the court concluded it had no jurisdiction over appeals of the 1999 judgments or the May 2017 denials and dismissed the appeals.
The opinion also explains the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Williams’ out-of-time motions for new trial under Texas appellate procedure.

Issue	Williams' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the appeals may proceed as direct attacks on the 1999 convictions	Williams contends his 1999 sentences are invalid because the enhancement relied on a robbery conviction that was not final when the firearm offenses occurred	The appeals are untimely; no timely notice of appeal was filed after the 1999 judgments	Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction over direct attacks on 1999 judgments (untimely notices)
Whether the court may hear appeals from the trial court’s May 2017 denials of Williams’ motions for new trial	Williams appeals the denials of his motions for new trial arguing newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance	Denials of motions for new trial are not independently appealable and the motions were untimely and thus not associated with a timely appeal of the underlying convictions	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: denials of out-of-time motions for new trial are not appealable absent a timely underlying appeal; trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the late motions

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke appellate jurisdiction)
McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996) (appealable orders in criminal cases generally limited to judgments of conviction)
State ex rel. Holmes v. Third Court of Appeals of Tex., 860 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on out-of-time motions for new trial)
Beathard v. State, 767 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (same: limits on trial court jurisdiction over late-filed motions for new trial)
In re R.V., 8 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999) (procedural requirements for filing motions for new trial and appellate timeliness)