John Calvin Whitmore v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00056-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOHN CALVIN WHITMORE, § APPEAL FROM THE 159TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
John Calvin Whitmore filed a notice of appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt in
which sentence was imposed on May 16, 2022. 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. Here, Appellant filed his notice of appeal on February 24, 2023,
after expiration of the time for filing a timely notice of appeal or seeking an extension of time to
file the notice of appeal. He did not file any motions for new trial in the trial court.
On March 24, 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 April 3 to show this
Court’s jurisdiction. This deadline expired without a response from Appellant.
“[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. 1 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 appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; see
also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).
Opinion delivered April 20, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1
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

APRIL 20, 2023

NO. 12-23-00056-CR

JOHN CALVIN WHITMORE,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 159th District Court
of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2019-0477)

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.