James Matthew Romero A/K/A Matthew James Romero v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00271-CR

JAMES MATTHEW ROMERO A/K/A MATTHEW JAMES ROMERO, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 69th District Court
Sherman County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1212, Honorable Kimberly Allen, Presiding

October 20, 2025
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Appellant, James Matthew Romero a/k/a Matthew James Romero, proceeding pro

se, appeals his conviction for manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance1 and

sentence to seventeen years of confinement. We dismiss the untimely appeal for want

of jurisdiction and because Appellant has no right of appeal.

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112(e).
The trial court sentenced Appellant on September 9, 2024. Because no timely

motion for new trial was filed, a notice of appeal was due within thirty days after

sentencing, by October 9, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a) (requiring a notice of appeal

in a criminal case to be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed or within ninety

days if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial). Appellant filed a notice of appeal

almost a year later, on September 24, 2025. Appellant’s untimely notice of appeal, thus,

prevents this Court from acquiring jurisdiction over the appeal. See Castillo v. State, 369

S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, the court

of appeals has no option but to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”).

Further, under Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), we are required to dismiss an

appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been

made part of the record.” Here, the trial court’s certification of Appellant’s right of appeal

indicates that this is a plea-bargain case with no right of appeal. The certification

comports with the record before the Court.

By letter of September 25, 2025, we notified Appellant of the consequences of his

late notice of appeal and the trial court’s certification and directed him to show how the

Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Appellant has not filed a response or had any

further communication with this Court to date.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and based on the trial

court’s certification.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
2