Ex Parte Richard Lawrence Nugent, 01-16-00903-CR

In 2005 Richard Nugent pleaded guilty to first-degree aggregate theft; sentence of 10 years was suspended and he received 10 years' community supervision and restitution obligations.
In April 2015 Nugent filed an article 11.072 habeas application alleging ineffective assistance, involuntariness of plea, and newly discovered evidence of innocence.
The trial court orally denied the application on May 31, 2016 and later signed written findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 25, 2016.
Nugent’s counsel filed a notice of appeal on November 2, 2016 (100 days after the signed order), and an affidavit claimed counsel mistakenly believed the appeal deadline ran from the oral ruling and that counsel did not know the bench order had been signed.
Counsel filed a Motion for Out of Time Appeal seeking relief from the late filing; no Rule 26.3 motion to extend the appellate deadline was filed within the applicable grace period.
The Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely and denied the out-of-time motion, dismissing the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of notice of appeal from denial of art. 11.072 habeas	Nugent: appeal due 30 days from May 31, 2016 oral denial	State/Respondent: appeal due 30 days from written signed order	Court: appeal period runs from entry (signing) of written order; notice due 30 days after July 25, 2016
Authority to grant out-of-time appeal	Nugent: court should allow out-of-time appeal because counsel mistakenly computed deadline and lacked notice of signed order	Court/State: appellate court has no authority to extend criminal appeal deadline except as Rule 26.3 provides	Court: no authority to permit late notice outside Rule 26.3; must dismiss untimely appeal
Lack of notice of signed order as excuse for late filing	Nugent: lack of notice of the July 25 order excuses late filing	State: no criminal analogue to civil rules that grant additional time for lack of notice	Court: unawareness of appealable order does not excuse untimely notice in criminal cases

Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (untimely perfection deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)
Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (appellate jurisdiction requires timely appeal)
Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (court may not allow late notice of appeal except as rule permits)
Dewalt v. State, 417 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (being unaware of an appealable order does not excuse an untimely criminal appeal)