Olivo v. State
- Decided
- March 27, 1996
- Docket
- 0442-95
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 3,610 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that former rule 83, predecessor of rule 25.2(d), could not be used to amend defective notice of appeal — Pickens v. State (2003)
- holding that timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeal’s jurisdiction — Eduardo A. Trevino v. State (2020)
- holding that when notice of appeal is filed within fifteen-day period but no timely motion for extension of time is filed, appellate court lacks jurisdiction — David Duran v. State (2009)
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 ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOB DISCRETIONARY REVIEW MEYERS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of murder, and the jury assessed punishment at forty years of confinement. Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed on June 27, 1994. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on July 12, 1994, the fifteenth day after it was due. Appellant’s motion for extension of time, styled a “Motion for Leave to File Late Notice of Appeal,” was filed on September 27, 1994. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Olivo v. State, 894 S.W.2d 58 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1994). We granted Appellant’s petition for discretionary review to address the following ground:
Cite this
Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (1996)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.