Opinion
No. 13-07-212-CR
Opinion delivered and filed September 20, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
Before Justices RODRIGUEZ, BENAVIDES, and VELA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, MARCIAL MATA BOCANEGRA, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. Sentence in this cause was imposed on January 9, 2007. No timely motion for new trial was filed. The notice of appeal was due to be filed on February 8, 2007, but was not filed until March 5, 2007. Said notice of appeal is untimely filed. On April 19, 2007, appellant filed a pro se motion to deem appeal timely perfected. In the motion, appellant states that he entered a plea of guilty to the offense of murder in the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County on January 9, 2007. Thereafter, appellant states that on January 16, 2007, he filed a motion to withdraw his involuntary plea of guilt because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant contends that the motion for withdrawal of plea was filed in lieu of a motion for new trial and that the filing of said motion to withdraw plea should act to extend the deadline for filing his notice of appeal. On May 17, 2007, this Court referred the motion to deem appeal timely perfected to the trial court and abated the appeal. The trial court was directed to determine the merits of appellant's pro se motion to deem appeal timely perfected. Additionally, the trial court was directed to determine whether appellant was indigent and whether counsel should be appointed to represent appellant in this matter. The trial court's findings and recommendations were received and filed in this Court on August 6, 2007. Pursuant to this Court's directive to determine whether appellant was indigent and whether counsel should be appointed, the trial court found that appellant was indigent and appointed counsel to represent appellant in this matter. As to the merits of appellant's motion to deem appeal timely perfected, the trial court found that the "notice of motion to vacate guilty plea," dated January 11, 2007, was not a proper motion for new trial and did not extend the deadline for appellant to file a notice of appeal in this cause and, accordingly, the notice of appeal filed on March 5, 2007, was not timely filed. The trial court found that appellant's pro se motion to deem appeal timely perfected should be denied. The Court, having considered the documents on file, the trial court's findings and recommendations, and appellant's failure to timely perfect his appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant's motion to deem appeal timely perfected is DENIED. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. Any other pending motions are denied as moot.