Juan Rangel v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00117-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JUAN RANGEL, § APPEAL FROM THE 411TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § TRINITY COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Juan Rangel filed a notice of appeal from a judgment in which sentence was imposed on
January 17, 2023. 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 April 4, 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. The case
information sheet from the Trinity County District Clerk’s Office reflects that Appellant filed no
motion for new trial.
On May 10, 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 May 19 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 May 31, 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

MAY 31, 2023

NO. 12-23-00117-CR

JUAN RANGEL,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 411th District Court
of Trinity County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 11258)

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.