Michael Ray Timmons v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law of Smith County

lee, elmer edward v. state NO. 12-03-00353-CR
NO. 12-03-00354-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL RAY TIMMONS,

 
APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

These appeals are being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of harassment in trial court cause number 001-84155-01 (appellate cause number 12-03-00353-CR), and sentence was imposed on September 13, 2001. In the second cause, trial court cause number 001-85727-02 (appellate cause number 12-03-00354-CR), Appellant was convicted of theft by check. Sentence was imposed in that cause on January 6, 2003. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court unless a motion for new trial is timely filed. Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. Id. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before October 15, 2001 in appellate cause number 12-03-00353-CR and on or before February 5, 2003 in appellate cause number 12-03-00354-CR. However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal in either cause until September 10, 2003. Moreover, Appellant did not file a timely motion for extension of time to file either notice of appeal as authorized by Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.

On October 24, 2003, this court notified Appellant pursuant to Rule 26.2 and 37.2, that the clerk's record did not show the jurisdiction of this court, and it gave him until November 10, 2003 to correct the defect. To date, Appellant has failed to respond to our notice or otherwise show the jurisdiction of this court. Because this court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as provided by Rule 26.3, the appeals must be dismissed. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

The appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered November 13, 2003.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)