Alexandro Camacho v. The State of Texas Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOS. 12-19-00123-CR 12-19-00124-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS ALEXANDRO CAMACHO, APPELLANT § APPEALS FROM THE 114TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM These appeals are being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Alexandro Camacho, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to challenge his convictions in trial court cause numbers 114-098002 and 114-1179-02. Sentence was imposed on October 31, 2002. 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 April 5, 2019, 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 April 5, this Court notified Appellant that the information received failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, i.e., there is no new final judgment or appealable order contained therein. We informed Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before May 6 to show this Court’s jurisdiction. On May 2, Appellant’s newly appointed counsel filed a memorandum of law regarding jurisdiction and the timely filing of notice of appeal, in which he states that Appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal in any of the cases. He states that “Appellant cannot establish a legal basis by which the Court could claim jurisdiction over these matters” and expresses his belief that dismissal is required. We agree. “[I]n Texas, appeals by either the State or the defendant in a criminal case are permitted only when they are specifically authorized by statute.” State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). 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). In the present case, Appellant’s appeals are untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeals for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). Opinion delivered May 8, 2019. 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 MAY 8, 2019 NO. 12-19-00123-CR ALEXANDRO CAMACHO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0980-02) 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. COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT MAY 8, 2019 NO. 12-19-00124-CR ALEXANDRO CAMACHO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1179-02) 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.
