CourtListener 10852472•Alan Kenneth Wilson v. the State of Texas
Alan Kenneth Wilson v. the State of Texas
CourtListener 10852472Txctapp230 de abr. de 2026
Texto completo
In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-26-00119-CR
___________________________
ALAN KENNETH WILSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 355th District Court
Hood County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR17050
Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Alan Kenneth Wilson attempts to appeal his February 12, 2026
conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 22.021. Because Wilson did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was
due March 16, 2026. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Wilson’s notice of appeal,
however, was not filed until April 6, 2026.1
On April 10, 2026, we notified Wilson of our concern that we lack jurisdiction
over this appeal because his notice of appeal was not timely filed. We warned Wilson
that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response by
April 20, 2026, showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we could dismiss it for
want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. On April 23, 2026, Wilson filed in our
court a “Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal,” requesting that we extend
the time to file his appeal to April 6, 2026.2 Other than that motion, we received no
response to our jurisdiction letter.
1
On April 2, 2026—seventeen days after his notice of appeal was due—Wilson
filed in the trial court a “Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal.” That
motion incorrectly stated that Wilson’s notice of appeal was due February 23, 2025. It
also mistakenly stated that Wilson’s “Deferred Probation was revoked” and that the
trial court had assessed a twenty-year sentence. The judgment, however, reveals that
this was not a revocation case and that Wilson received an eighty-five-year sentence.
In that motion, Wilson incorrectly stated that his notice of appeal was due
2
March 12, 2026, and he mistakenly noted that the trial court had assessed a sixty-year
sentence.
2
A timely notice of appeal is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. See
Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We may extend the
jurisdictional deadline if a notice of appeal is filed in the trial court within fifteen days
of its due date, and within that same period, the appellant also files a motion for
extension of time complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b). See
Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b). Here,
Wilson filed two motions to extend the time to file his notice of appeal—one in the
trial court on April 2, 2026, and another in our court on April 23, 2026. Both
motions were untimely because they were filed more than fifteen days after Wilson’s
notice of appeal was due. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522.
Because Wilson’s notice of appeal and his motions for extension were
untimely, we deny Wilson’s motions and dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522–23; Sias v. State, No. 02-25-00085-
CR, 2025 WL 1085199, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 10, 2025, no pet.) (mem.
op., not designated for publication) (denying untimely motion for extension to file
notice of appeal and dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because of untimely
notice of appeal); Szabo v. State, No. 01-17-00024-CR, 2017 WL 1149210, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 28, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (same).
3
/s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: April 30, 2026
4
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.