Karl Lynn Shackelford v. The State of Texas Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-19-00171-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS KARL LYNN SHACKELFORD, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Karl Lynn Shackelford, acting pro se, appeals from a conviction for criminal trespass. Under the rules of appellate procedure, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order; or within ninety days 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, sentence was imposed on March 27, 2019 and there is no indication that Appellant filed a motion for new trial; thus, notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than April 26, 2019. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 7 and did not file a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. On May 7, 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 Rule 26.2 and no timely motion for an extension of time to file same as permitted by Rule 26.3. The notice further advised Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before May 13, 2019, to show this Court’s jurisdiction. This deadline passed without a response from Appellant. “[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). When, as in this case, “a notice of appeal, but no motion for extension of time, is filed within the fifteen-day period, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.” Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 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, 918 S.W.2d at 522. In the present case, Appellant’s appeal is untimely. 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 May 22, 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 22, 2019 NO. 12-19-00171-CR KARL LYNN SHACKELFORD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law No 3 of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 003-80391-19) 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.
