Alan Kenneth Wilson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: April 30, 2026
• Docket: 02-26-00119-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-26-00119-CR ___________________________

ALAN KENNETH WILSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR17050

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Alan Kenneth Wilson attempts to appeal his February 12, 2026

conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 22.021. Because Wilson did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was

due March 16, 2026. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Wilson’s notice of appeal,

however, was not filed until April 6, 2026.1

On April 10, 2026, we notified Wilson of our concern that we lack jurisdiction

over this appeal because his notice of appeal was not timely filed. We warned Wilson

that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response by

April 20, 2026, showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we could dismiss it for

want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. On April 23, 2026, Wilson filed in our

court a “Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal,” requesting that we extend

the time to file his appeal to April 6, 2026.2 Other than that motion, we received no

response to our jurisdiction letter.

1 On April 2, 2026—seventeen days after his notice of appeal was due—Wilson filed in the trial court a “Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal.” That motion incorrectly stated that Wilson’s notice of appeal was due February 23, 2025. It also mistakenly stated that Wilson’s “Deferred Probation was revoked” and that the trial court had assessed a twenty-year sentence. The judgment, however, reveals that this was not a revocation case and that Wilson received an eighty-five-year sentence.

In that motion, Wilson incorrectly stated that his notice of appeal was due 2

March 12, 2026, and he mistakenly noted that the trial court had assessed a sixty-year sentence.

2 A timely notice of appeal is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. See

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We may extend the

jurisdictional deadline if a notice of appeal is filed in the trial court within fifteen days

of its due date, and within that same period, the appellant also files a motion for

extension of time complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b). See

Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b). Here,

Wilson filed two motions to extend the time to file his notice of appeal—one in the

trial court on April 2, 2026, and another in our court on April 23, 2026. Both

motions were untimely because they were filed more than fifteen days after Wilson’s

notice of appeal was due. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522.

Because Wilson’s notice of appeal and his motions for extension were

untimely, we deny Wilson’s motions and dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522–23; Sias v. State, No. 02-25-00085-

CR, 2025 WL 1085199, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 10, 2025, no pet.) (mem.

op., not designated for publication) (denying untimely motion for extension to file

notice of appeal and dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because of untimely

notice of appeal); Szabo v. State, No. 01-17-00024-CR, 2017 WL 1149210, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 28, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not

designated for publication) (same).

3 /s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: April 30, 2026