Ryan Joshua Pruitt v. the State of Texas

NOS. 12-24-00085-CR
12-24-00086-CR
12-24-00087-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RYAN JOSHUA PRUITT, § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

On April 12, 2024, Ryan Joshua Pruitt filed pro se notices of appeal from judgments of
conviction in which sentence was imposed on February 28, 2024.
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. The case
information sheet from the Smith County District Clerk reflects that Appellant did not file a
motion for new trial; thus, his notice of appeal was due on or before March 29. 1
On April 16, this Court notified Appellant that the notices of appeal failed to show the
jurisdiction of the Court, namely, there was no notice of appeal filed within the time allowed by
the rules of appellate procedure and no timely motion for extension to file same. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 37.2. We further notified Appellant that the appeals would be dismissed unless the
information was amended on or before April 26 to show the jurisdiction of the Court.
Appellant’s counsel filed a motion for extension of time to establish appellate jurisdiction, which
this Court granted to May 6. The May 6 deadline expired, and Appellant has not shown the
jurisdiction of this Court.
“[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 and he did not file a motion for extension with this Court within the time prescribed by Rule
26.3, we dismiss Appellant’s appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; see
also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Unlike the Texas Supreme Court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has not held that an extension is

implied when a notice of appeal is filed within fifteen days after the filing deadline. Lair v. State, 321 S.W.3d 158,
159 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d) (citing Few v. State, 230 S.W.3d 184, 189–90 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007), Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617
(Tex. 1997)); see Hurts v. State, No. 12-23-00247-CR, 2023 WL 7178186, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 31,
2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

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

MAY 15, 2024

NO. 12-24-00085-CR

RYAN JOSHUA PRUITT,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1966-22)

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
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 15, 2024

NO. 12-24-00086-CR

RYAN JOSHUA PRUITT,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-2033-22)

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
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 15, 2024

NO. 12-24-00087-CR

RYAN JOSHUA PRUITT,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-2034-22)

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