Slaton v. State
- Decided
- December 9, 1998
- Docket
- 475-98
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 2,852 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that amendments to rules of appellate procedure did not affect Olivo 's rationale requiring timely notice of appeal to vest appellate court with jurisdiction — Shawn Siddique Abbasi v. State (2012)
- holding that amendments to rules of appellate procedure did not affect Olivo’s rationale requiring timely notice of appeal to vest appellate court with jurisdiction — Shawn Siddique Abbasi v. State (2012)
- holding that amendments to rules of appellate procedure did not affect Olivo’s rationale requiring timely notice of appeal to vest appellate court with jurisdiction — Exavier Rhysen Ruffin v. State (2018)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted Appellant of murder and assessed his punishment at confinement for fifteen years. The Court of Appeals dismissed Appellant’s appeal because his notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Slaton v. State, No. 03-97-0838-CR, 1998 WL 77964 (Tex.App.—Austin, delivered February 26, 1998). The Court of Appeals followed this Court’s holding in Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), which held that courts of appeals may not suspend the rules pursuant to Tex.R.App. P. 2 to extend the time limit for filing notice of appeal. Appellant contends Olivo is no longer controlling because it construed the former version of Rule 2. [1]
Cite this
Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (1998)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.