Scott Crow v. The State of Texas

No. 11-26-00053-CR · Texas Court of Appeals, Eleventh District · April 9, 2026 · No. No. 11-26-00053-CR

Summary

The Eleventh Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed Scott Crow’s second appeal from a 2015 felony DWI conviction for want of jurisdiction. The court held that the 2026 notice of appeal was untimely and that the plea-bargain certification reflected no right of appeal and a waiver of appeal.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, Eleventh District
Writing for the Court
W. Bruce Williams; Bailey, Chief Justice; W. Bruce Williams, Justice; Brian Quinn, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), sitting by assignment
Jurisdiction
Texas Court of Appeals, Eleventh District
Decision date
April 9, 2026
Docket number
No. 11-26-00053-CR
Procedural posture
Appellant filed a second notice of appeal from a 2015 felony DWI judgment nearly ten years after sentencing. The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely and the plea-bargain certification showed no right of appeal and a waiver of appeal.
Standard of review
Not expressly stated; the court treated timeliness and the existence of a right to appeal as jurisdictional matters governed by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Precedential value
Unpublished memorandum opinion; not designated for publication under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.2(b).
Parties
Scott Crow v. The State of Texas
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

appellate jurisdictionappellate procedurefinal judgment ruleplea bargainingcriminal procedure

Practice areas

Texas criminal appellate procedurecriminal proceduredriving while intoxicated

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the second notice of appeal was timely under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2(a).
  2. Whether the appeal was barred under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) because the trial court's certification showed no right of appeal in a plea-bargain case and reflected a waiver of appeal.
  3. Whether the court had discretion to permit the appeal or extend the time for filing the notice of appeal.

Holdings

  1. The appeal had to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because Crow filed his notice of appeal nearly ten years after sentence was imposed, well outside the thirty-day deadline, and no timely motion for new trial extended the deadline to ninety days.
  2. Even if Crow's appeal had been timely, it would have been prohibited because the trial court's certification did not show that he had a right of appeal and reflected that he waived that right.
  3. The court had no discretion to allow the appeal to proceed, and Crow's motion for an extension of time to file his final appeal was moot.

Key quotations

For the foregoing reasons, we have no discretion in this matter, and we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. (at 2)
Pursuant to Rule 26.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed either (1) within thirty days after the date that sentence is imposed in open court, or (2) if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial, within ninety days after the date that sentence is imposed in open court. (at 2)

Factual background

On June 10, 2015, Scott Crow pleaded guilty to third-degree felony driving while intoxicated, enhanced by a prior felony conviction. Under a negotiated plea bargain, the trial court sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment. The trial court's certification stated that the case was a plea-bargain case, Crow had no right of appeal, and he waived any right of appeal. Crow filed a second notice of appeal nearly ten years after sentencing.

Procedural history

Crow pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated in the 244th District Court of Ector County, Texas, and received a twenty-year sentence pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain. His first appeal was dismissed in 2016 as untimely and prohibited by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d). After filing a second notice of appeal on February 18, 2026, the Eleventh Court of Appeals notified him that the appeal appeared untimely and requested grounds for continuing it. Crow showed no grounds for proceeding, and the court dismissed the appeal and dismissed his motion for an extension of time as moot.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…