NO. 12-19-00171-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KARL LYNN SHACKELFORD, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Karl Lynn Shackelford, acting pro se, appeals from a conviction for criminal trespass. 

Under the rules of appellate procedure, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after 

the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day the trial court enters an 

appealable order; or within ninety days if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). Rule 26.3 provides that a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of 

appeal must be filed within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.3. In this case, sentence was imposed on March 27, 2019 and there is no indication that 

Appellant filed a motion for new trial; thus, notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than April 

26, 2019. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 7 and did not file a motion for extension of 

time to file the notice of appeal. 

On May 7, 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 Rule

26.2 and no timely motion for an extension of time to file same as permitted by Rule 26.3. The 

notice further advised Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was 

amended on or before May 13, 2019, to show this Court’s jurisdiction. This deadline passed 

without a response from Appellant.
2

“[I]n Texas, appeals 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). When, as in this case, “a notice of appeal, but no motion for 

extension of time, is filed within the fifteen-day period, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to 

dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.” 

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 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, 918 S.W.2d at 522. In the present case, Appellant’s appeal is untimely. 

Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). 

All pending motions are overruled as moot.

Opinion delivered May 22, 2019.

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).
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 22, 2019

NO. 12-19-00171-CR

KARL LYNN SHACKELFORD,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No 3 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 003-80391-19)

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.