Larry Coleman Hicks v. State

NO. 12-18-00263-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
LARRY COLEMAN HICKS, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT
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 aggravated assault, trial court cause number 4-95-481.
Sentence was imposed on October 13, 1995. 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 with the trial court on September 26, 2018, long after
expiration of 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 September 28, 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 October 8 to show this Court’s
jurisdiction. On October 15, this Court received correspondence from Appellant, in which
Appellant address his abandonment by counsel and the involvement of a judge who once served
as prosecuting attorney. Additionally, although Appellant’s notice of appeal specifically states he
is appealing from trial court cause number 4-95-481, other documents suggest an attempt to appeal
from more recent, pending proceedings against him. However, Appellant has not amended his
notice of appeal to include any other trial court cause numbers. Nor has he otherwise shown the
jurisdiction of this Court.
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 October 17, 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
OCTOBER 17, 2018
NO. 12-18-00263-CR
LARRY COLEMAN HICKS,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 114th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 4-95-481)
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.