Alexandro Camacho v. State ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                    NO. 12-19-00128-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    TYLER, TEXAS
    ALEXANDRO CAMACHO,                                 §      APPEAL FROM THE
    APPELLANT
    V.                                                 §      COUNTY COURT AT LAW
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    APPELLEE                                           §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    PER CURIAM
    This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Alexandro Camacho, acting pro
    se, filed a notice of appeal to challenge his conviction in trial court cause number 001-84777-01.
    Sentence was imposed on January 30, 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 17, 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 April 29 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). 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).
    Opinion delivered April 30, 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
    APRIL 30, 2019
    NO. 12-19-00128-CR
    ALEXANDRO CAMACHO,
    Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    Appeal from the County Court at Law
    of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 001-84777-01)
    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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-19-00128-CR

Filed Date: 4/30/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/3/2019