Dorian Terell Watkins v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 15, 2024
• Docket: 12-24-00240-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-24-00240-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DORIAN TERELL WATKINS, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

Dorian Terell Watkins, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal from a conviction for possession of a controlled substance in which sentence was imposed on March 30, 2024. 1 In a criminal case, the appellant perfects an appeal by timely filing a sufficient notice of appeal. TEX R. APP. P. 25.2(b). The notice of appeal must be filed (1) within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order, or (2) within ninety days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX R. APP. P. 26.2(a). The appellate court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice, the party files in the trial court the notice of appeal and files in the appellate court a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b). TEX R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on July 19, 2024, long after expiration of the time for filing a timely notice of appeal or a timely motion for extension.

1 We also note that Appellant and his counsel signed a written certification of Appellant’s right to appeal,

which states that this is a plea bargain case and Appellant has no right to appeal. When the defendant is the appellant, the record must include the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). This Court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. On July 29, the Clerk of 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(a), 26.3. We informed Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before August 8 to show this Court’s jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond to this Court’s notice. “[A]ppeals 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. 2 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). Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).

Opinion delivered August 15, 2024. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

2 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

AUGUST 15, 2024

DORIAN TERELL WATKINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1295-17)

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