Dexter Alexander v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 16, 2007
• Docket: 12-07-00155-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

lee, elmer edward v. state

                                        NO. 12-07-00155-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DEXTER ALEXANDER,     §          APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V.        §          JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §          SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance.  Sentence was imposed on January 22, 2007.

            Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court unless a motion for new trial is timely filed.  Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court.  Id.  Appellant did not file a motion for new trial.  Therefore, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before February 21, 2007.  However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until April 19, 2007 and did not timely file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.

            On April 23, 2007, this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Rules 26.2 and 37.2, that the clerk’s record did not show the jurisdiction of this court, and it gave him until May 3, 2007 to correct the defect.  This deadline has now passed, and Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this court or otherwise responded to our April 23, 2007 notice.  Because this court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as provided by Rule 26.3, the appeal must be dismissed.  See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

Opinion delivered May 16, 2007.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)