Deliza Mendoza v. State
13-17-00330-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- Appellant Deliza Mendoza pro se filed notices of appeal on May 22, 2017 from two criminal matters pending in the 105th District Court of Nueces County.
- The Court of Appeals' clerk notified Mendoza on June 22, 2017 that no final appealable orders appeared to exist and gave ten days to correct the defect.
- Mendoza did not respond to the Court’s directive.
- The appeals were filed before any finding of guilt or jury verdict and more than thirty days had not elapsed from any appealable order.
- The appellate court reviewed the record and concluded there were no appealable orders entered within thirty days of the notices of appeal.
- Because the appeals were not timely perfected and no exception to final-judgment jurisdiction applied, the court dismissed the appeals for want of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear Mendoza's appeals | Mendoza filed timely notices of appeal from her criminal cases | State (via court) argued no final appealable orders existed and notices were untimely/premature | Court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals |
| Whether any exceptions to the final-judgment rule applied | Mendoza implicitly argued appealable action existed | Record showed no applicable exceptions (deferred adjudication, bond reduction, habeas) | Court held no exception applied |
| Whether the notices of appeal could be treated as premature filings under Rule 27.1(b) | Mendoza's notices were filed seeking appellate review | Court found notices filed before a finding of guilt or jury verdict, so not salvageable as premature | Court held notices could not be construed as premature appeals |
| Whether the court could act on the merits despite perceived defects | Mendoza sought appellate review | Court cited precedent that untimely/perfected appeals deprive it of jurisdiction | Court held it could only dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (timely notice of appeal is essential to vest jurisdiction in the court of appeals)
- Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. 1961) (general rule that appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases requires a final judgment of conviction)
- McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996) (noting limited exceptions to final-judgment rule)
- Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (addressing appeals during deferred adjudication supervision)
- Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998) (discussing appeals from denials of habeas corpus relief)