Raymond Mitchell Richards v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-04-00319-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RAYMOND MITCHELL RICHARDS, APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On August 11, 2004, Appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary of a habitation, and punishment was assessed by the trial court. 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 September 10, 2004. However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until September 14, 2004. Moreover, Appellant did not file a timely motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal as authorized by Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.

On October 8, 2004, this Court notified Appellant, pursuant to Rules 26.2 and 37.2, that the clerk s record did not show the jurisdiction of this Court, and it gave him until October 25, 2004 to correct the defect. The deadline has now passed, and Appellant has neither responded to our notice or established 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 appeal must be dismissed. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Cr. App. 1998).

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered October 29, 2004.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

//