Richard Bryan Dykes v. The State of Texas Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-14-00351-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS RICHARD BRYAN DYKES, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of theft and sentenced to confinement for eighteen months. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed in open court. 26.2(a)(1). TEX. R. APP. P. Here, Appellant’s sentence was imposed in open court on December 6, 2013. Consequently, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed not later than January 6, 2014. However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until November 20, 2014, and did not file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3 (appellate court may extend time for filing notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after deadline for filing notice of appeal, appellant files notice of appeal in trial court and motion complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) in appellate court). On December 9, 2014, this court notified Appellant that his notice of appeal was untimely and that there was no timely motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal as permitted by Rule 26.3. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or before December 19, 2014, the information filed in this appeal was amended to show the jurisdiction of this court. The deadline has passed, and Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this court nor otherwise responded to its December 9, 2014 notice. 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, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Opinion delivered January 7, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JANUARY 7, 2015 NO. 12-14-00351-CR RICHARD BRYAN DYKES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1137-13) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
