What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the appeal because the notice of appeal was filed too late and the trial court certified that the defendant waived the right to appeal in a plea bargain.

Who is affected by this decision?

Appellant Efrain Rodulfo Jr. is affected because his attempted appeal cannot proceed; the State is the opposing party.

What happens next for the defendant?

The defendant remains under the trial court's sentence; to seek review now, he must pursue a post-conviction habeas application to request an out-of-time appeal.

Could the late notice of appeal have been fixed?

Potentially only if a timely motion for new trial had been filed or the defendant had followed the narrow extension procedure in Rule 26.3, which was not done here.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Not directly; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction generally cannot be appealed to the court of appeals, but the defendant may file an application for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of Criminal Appeals seeking an out-of-time appeal.

Efrain Rodulfo, Jr v. the State of Texas

Docket 03-26-00369-CR

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealDismissed

Filed: Apr 28, 2026 · 3 days ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 03-26-00369-CR

Appeal from a conviction following a plea bargain and sentencing in a criminal case in the 207th District Court of Comal County

Summary

The Texas Third Court of Appeals dismissed Efrain Rodulfo Jr.'s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Rodulfo, who pleaded guilty under a plea bargain and was sentenced to 25 years on November 18, 2025, filed a pro se motion construed as a notice of appeal on April 14, 2026. The appellate court found the notice untimely because it was filed well after the 30-day deadline (or 90 days only if a timely motion for new trial is filed), and no extension was sought. The trial court also certified that Rodulfo waived and did not have a right to appeal, which required dismissal as well.

Issues Decided

Whether the notice of appeal was timely under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 and 26.3
Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction when the trial court certifies the defendant waived the right to appeal in a plea-bargain case
Whether a late-filed motion for an out-of-time appeal and a request for records can cure an untimely notice of appeal

Court's Reasoning

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 requires a notice of appeal within 30 days of sentencing (extended to 90 days only if a timely motion for new trial is filed). No motion for new trial or timely extension was filed, so the notice was untimely and deprived the court of jurisdiction. Additionally, the trial court's certification stated this was a plea-bargain case in which the defendant waived and did not have the right to appeal; when such a certification is part of the record, the appellate court must dismiss the appeal.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.2, 26.3, 25.2
Slaton v. State981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)
Dears v. State154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
Chavez v. State183 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)

Parties

Appellant: Efrain Rodulfo, Jr.
Appellee: The State of Texas
Judge: Robert Updegrove
Judge: Rosa Lopez Theofanis

Key Dates

Sentencing date: 2025-11-18
Date motions signed (per filings): 2026-04-02
Date motions filed in trial court: 2026-04-14
Appellate decision filed: 2026-04-28

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult criminal appellate counsel
Talk with an attorney experienced in post-conviction relief to evaluate whether to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking an out-of-time appeal under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.072.
2
Prepare and file post-conviction habeas application
If advised, prepare an application explaining why the appeal was not timely filed and any supporting evidence, then file it with the Court of Criminal Appeals as the route for an out-of-time appeal.
3
Request trial-court records if needed
If records are required for a habeas application, arrange to obtain certified copies from the trial court clerk or through counsel, since the appellate motion for records was rendered moot by dismissal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court dismissed the appeal because the notice of appeal was filed too late and the trial court certified that the defendant waived the right to appeal in a plea bargain.
Who is affected by this decision?: Appellant Efrain Rodulfo Jr. is affected because his attempted appeal cannot proceed; the State is the opposing party.
What happens next for the defendant?: The defendant remains under the trial court's sentence; to seek review now, he must pursue a post-conviction habeas application to request an out-of-time appeal.
Could the late notice of appeal have been fixed?: Potentially only if a timely motion for new trial had been filed or the defendant had followed the narrow extension procedure in Rule 26.3, which was not done here.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Not directly; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction generally cannot be appealed to the court of appeals, but the defendant may file an application for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of Criminal Appeals seeking an out-of-time appeal.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-26-00369-CR

Efrain Rodulfo, Jr, Appellant

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
NO. CR2025-155C, THE HONORABLE ROBERT UPDEGROVE, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Efrain Rodulfo, Jr. 1 was convicted of evading

arrest or detention with a vehicle and, after being enhanced to habitual-offender status, sentenced

to twenty-five years’ confinement. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 12.42(d), 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A). The

trial court imposed appellant’s sentence on November 18, 2025. On April 14, 2026, appellant filed

pro se in the trial court a motion for an out-of-time direct appeal and a motion to obtain a copy of

the record under the Freedom of Information Act. Both motions indicate that they were signed on

April 2. We construe the former as a notice of appeal, which we must dismiss for want of

jurisdiction because it is untimely.

1 We use the name given on appellant’s judgment of conviction. In his notice of appeal,
he states his name is actually Rodulfo Efrain, Jr.
In criminal cases, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day

sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or after the day the trial court enters an appealable

order. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). The period is extended to within 90 days after the day sentence

is imposed or suspended in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. Id. R.

26.2(a)(2). An appellate court may also extend the time to file the notice of appeal if, within

15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the defendant files in the trial court the

notice of appeal and files in the appellate court a motion for extension of time to file his notice of

appeal. Id. R. 26.3.

Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due

by December 18, 2025. See id. R. 26.2(a)(1). He did not file a motion for extension of time.

Consequently, his notice of appeal is untimely, and we have no discretion to do anything other

than dismiss the appeal. 2 See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)

(explaining that “[a] notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 26

is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction” and that if appeal is not timely perfected,

“a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal” and “can take

no action other than to dismiss the appeal”); see also Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 202 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2012) (noting that “one day is enough to deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction to

consider appellant’s appeal under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure”).

2 The remedy for an untimely notice of appeal is to file an application for post-conviction
writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of an
out-of-time appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072; Lucero v. State, No. 03-20-00064-CR,
2020 WL 938976, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated
for publication).
2
Moreover, a court of appeals “must dismiss an appeal if a certification showing that

the defendant has the right to appeal is not made a part of the appellate record.” Dears v. State,

154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court

has certified that (1) this is a plea-bargain case for which appellant has no right of appeal and that

(2) appellant has waived the right of appeal. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who

plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without

further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant’s motion to

obtain records is dismissed as moot. See Gonzalez v. State, No. 13-17-00449-CR,

2017 WL 4173659, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sep. 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication) (dismissing motion for copy of record as moot after dismissing

untimely appeal for want of jurisdiction); Lee v. State, No. 10-11-00172-CR, 2011 WL 2480696,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same).

__________________________________________
Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Theofanis and Crump

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 28, 2026

Do Not Publish