Ferrell Scott, Jr. v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 25, 2006
• Docket: 12-06-00354-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

lee, elmer edward v. state

                                        NO. 12-06-00354-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

FERRELL SCOTT, JR.,       §          APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

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 seeks to appeal an order denying his second DNA request.  Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the trial court enters an appealable order.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).  The trial court’s order was signed on August 8, 2006. Consequently, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before September 7, 2006.  Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until October 11, 2006.  Moreover, Appellant did not file a timely motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal as authorized by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. 

            On October 12, 2006, this Court notified Appellant, pursuant to rules of appellate procedure 26.2 and 37.2, that the clerk’s record did not show the jurisdiction of this Court, and it gave him until October 23, 2006 to correct the defect.  On October 23, 2006, Appellant responded to our notice explaining that he was represented by appointed counsel who “failed to or refused to file a notice of appeal,” and that he had filed his notice of appeal pro se.  However, he did not furnish information showing the jurisdiction of this Court.  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 October 25, 2006.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)