Larry Coleman Hicks v. The State of Texas Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-18-00164-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS LARRY COLEMAN HICKS, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH 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. Larry Coleman Hicks, acting pro se, appeals from his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Sentence was imposed on February 4, 2013 and no motion for new trial was filed. Under the rules of appellate procedure, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the sentence is imposed or within ninety days after sentence is imposed if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Rule 26.3 provides that a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal must be filed within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. In this case, Appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 20, 2018, long after the time for filing a notice of appeal under Rule 26.2(a) or for seeking a motion to extend under Rule 26.3. On June 20, 2018, this Court notified Appellant that the information received failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, i.e., there was no notice of appeal filed within the time allowed by the rules of appellate procedure and no timely motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2, 26.3. We informed Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before July 2 to show this Court’s jurisdiction. This deadline has now passed, and Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this Court nor otherwise responded to the June 20 notice. This Court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2, 26.3; see also 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, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). All pending motions are overruled as moot. Opinion delivered July 18, 2018. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 1 Only the court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction to grant an out-of-time appeal. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Kossie v. State, No. 01-16-00738-CR, 2017 WL 631842, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 16, 2017, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because appellant could not pursue out of time appeal without permission from court of criminal appeals); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 11.07 § 3(a) (West 2005). 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JULY 18, 2018 NO. 12-18-00164-CR LARRY COLEMAN HICKS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1263-12) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it 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., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, 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.
