IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00427-CR

JARVIS DWYANE TYSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 25638

O R D E R

According to information the Court has received, a judgment of conviction of 

Jarvis D. Tyson was rendered on September 30, 2013. His notice of appeal was due 

October 30, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). 

Tyson prepared a notice of appeal and motion for extension of time to file his 

notice of appeal and mistakenly forwarded those documents to the First Court of 

Appeals on November 6, 2013. It appears those documents were returned to him and 
Tyson v. State Page 2

he then forwarded those same documents to this Court on November 25, 2013. We 

received them on November 27, 2013 and they were filed on December 2, 2013.

Initially we note that neither the notice of appeal nor the motion for extension of 

time to file a notice of appeal contained proof of service. A copy of all documents 

presented to the Court must be served on all parties to the appeal and must contain 

proper proof of service. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5. However, we use Rule 2 and dispense with 

this requirement, only for these documents, and provide copies of the notice of appeal 

and the motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal to the State. Id. 2. 

We next note that the motion and notice of appeal appear to be untimely filed. 

According to Rule 26.3, we may extend the time to file the notice of appeal if, within 15 

days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party: (a) filed in the trial 

court the notice of appeal; and (b) files in the appellate court a motion complying with 

Rule 10.5(d). TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. The documents were received by us outside the 15 

day period articulated in this Rule. They were, however, received within the 15 day 

period at the First Court of Appeals. Further, even though Tyson forwarded his notice 

of appeal to the court of appeals rather than the trial court, that mistake is not fatal to 

the timeliness of the notice of appeal. See Id. 25.2(c)(1) (“If the notice of appeal is 

received in the court of appeals, the clerk of that court shall immediately record on the 

notice the date that it was received and send the notice to the trial court clerk.”). Thus, 

Tyson’s notice of appeal was filed within 15 days after the date it was due when it was 
Tyson v. State Page 3

received by the First Court of Appeals. We use this same logic and further hold that 

Tyson’s motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal was timely filed within 

15 days after the date it was due when it was received by the First Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, Tyson’s motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal is 

granted and the time for filing his notice of appeal is extended to the date the notice was 

filed in the First Court of Appeals, that being November 6, 2013.

Lastly, we note that it appears Tyson was represented by counsel at his trial but 

is now pursuing his appeal without counsel. Accordingly, this case is abated to the trial 

court to hold a hearing within 35 days from the date of this order to consider whether 

Tyson is indigent, whether trial counsel continues to represent Tyson on appeal, and if 

not, whether to appoint new counsel for Tyson. Supplemental Clerk’s and Reporter’s 

Records containing the trial court’s written or oral findings and rulings are ordered to 

be filed within 49 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed December 19, 2013