Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Elmer Larez-Rivero v. The State of Texas
Child Sexual Predator
Case Number: 02-21-00200-CR
Judge: Dana Womack
Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth
On appeal from the 462nd District Court of Denton
Plaintiff's Attorney: Andrea Simmons
Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.
Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement
MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800
Fort Worth, Texas – Criminal Defense lawyer represented defendant with appealing from a indecency with a child by contact charge.
Appellant Elmer Larez-Rivero attempts to appeal from his October 15, 2021
conviction for indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11.
Because Larez-Rivero did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due
no later than November 15, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Larez-Rivero’s
notice of appeal, however, was postmarked on November 18, 2021—three days after
the deadline—and it was file-stamped by the trial-court clerk on December 6, 2021—
twenty-one days after the deadline. Cf. Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b); Taylor v. State,
424 S.W.3d 39, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Larez-Rivero’s ability to appeal his conviction runs into further problems
because it was made pursuant to a plea bargain. Larez-Rivero pleaded guilty to the
underlying offense and signed a waiver of his right to appeal, and the trial court
sentenced him accordingly. The trial court’s certification of his right to appeal states
that the case “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and
that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).
On March 22, 2022, we notified Larez-Rivero that it appeared we lacked
jurisdiction over this appeal because his notice of appeal was not timely filed and
because the trial court’s certification reflected that he had no right of appeal.1 We
advised him that this appeal could be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to
1Prior to our March 22, 2022 letter, we questioned our jurisdiction over this
appeal in two other letters to Larez-Rivero.
continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or
before April 1, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Although we received a response from
Larez-Rivero, it does not address our jurisdictional concerns or show grounds for
continuing the appeal.
A timely notice of appeal is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. See
Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Although we may
extend the jurisdictional deadline if a notice of appeal is filed in the trial court within
fifteen days of its due date, we may not do so in the absence of a motion requesting
such relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; Kessinger v. State,
26 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref’d) (per curiam). Here,
Larez-Rivero did not file a motion for extension of time with his untimely notice of
Moreover, the right to appeal a conviction arising from a plea-bargain
agreement is limited to matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled
upon before trial or to cases in which the appellant obtained the trial court’s
permission to appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02; Tex. R. App.
P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification in this case does not show that LarezRivero was granted permission to appeal, and the record does not indicate that LarezRivero intends to challenge a ruling on a written motion filed and ruled on before he
Outcome: Thus, because Larez-Rivero’s appeal was untimely, and in accordance
with the trial court’s certification, we dismiss Larez-Rivero’s appeal.