Emmanuel Aransiola v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued May 12, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-26-00039-CR
NO. 01-26-00040-CR
———————————
EMMANUEL ARANSIOLA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 24-DCR-106461 and 24-DCR-107554

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. See

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A notice of appeal

must be filed within 30 days of sentencing or 90 days, if a timely motion for new

trial is filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). That deadline may be extended if, within 15
days after it expires, the appellant files both a notice of appeal and a motion for

extension. Id. 26.3; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 526.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault of a child and

sentenced on September 29, 2025. He timely moved for new trial, extending the

appellate deadline to December 29, but appellant filed his appeal on January 9, 2026.

Appellant contends that his January 9 notice of appeal independently

constituted an implied motion for extension under Verburgt v. Dorner because it was

filed within the 15‑day extension period. 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997). He also

argues that he timely filed a motion for extension—but in the Fourteenth Court of

Appeals—and that this filing preserves appellate jurisdiction for this criminal case

under the “bona fide attempt to appeal” doctrine discussed in Hone v. Hanafin, 104

S.W.3d 884, 886–87 (Tex. 2003).

Because this is a criminal case, we must apply precedent from the Texas Court

of Criminal Appeals to decide this issue. See State v. Chody, 722 S.W.3d 333, 336

(Tex. App.—Austin 2025, pet. filed Oct. 29, 2025). And the Court of Criminal

Appeals has not adopted Verburgt. See Lair v. State, 321 S.W.3d 158, 159 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd) (Sharp, J., concurring). Rather, the

Court of Criminal Appeals has held that failure to file both the notice of appeal and

extension motion within fifteen days renders a criminal appeal untimely. See Olivo,

2
918 S.W.2d at 523; see also Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 606 (Tex. App.–

Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

Appellant has not cited—and the Court has not found—any authority holding

that, in a criminal case, filing a motion to extend in another court preserves

jurisdiction. Instead, “[t]his Court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice

of appeal [in a criminal case] except as provided by Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 26.3.” Martinez v. State, No. 01-20-00299-CR, 2021 WL 4432538, at *1

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 28, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

for publication) (citing Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522). And appellant failed to do that.

Accordingly, when an appeal is not timely perfected in a criminal case, the

only permissible action is dismissal. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. We therefore

dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are dismissed as

moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams, Justices Guerra and Guiney.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

3