Opinion filed January 9, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-19-00372-CR

___________

KYDRICK MARQUELL REED, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 238th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR52408

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Kydrick Marquell Reed, has filed an untimely pro se notice of 

appeal from a judgment of conviction for the offense of manufacture or delivery of 

a substance in Penalty Group 1. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at 

confinement for ten years. We dismiss the appeal. 

The documents on file in this appeal indicate that Appellant’s sentence was

imposed on May 28, 2019, and that his notice of appeal was filed in the district 
2

clerk’s office on November 27, 2019. When the appeal was filed in this court, we 

notified Appellant that his notice of appeal was not timely. We requested that 

Appellant respond to our letter and show grounds to continue. Both Appellant and 

his court-appointed attorney have filed a response, but neither have shown grounds 

upon which this appeal may continue. 

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal is due 

to be filed either (1) within thirty days after the date that sentence is imposed or 

suspended in open court or (2) if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial, 

within ninety days after the date that sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). A notice of appeal must be in writing and filed with the 

clerk of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). The documents on file in this 

court reflect that Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the trial 

court 183 days after the sentence was imposed in open court. The notice of appeal

was therefore untimely. Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of a 

timely motion for extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain this

appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 

918 S.W.2d 519, 522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 

110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 

Both Appellant and his appellate attorney seem to indicate that this court has 

jurisdiction because Appellant had timely filed a motion to impose community 

supervision or “shock probation,” which the trial court apparently did not grant. 

Counsel suggests that, because an order granting shock probation is an appealable 

order, see State v. Robinson, 498 S.W.3d 914, 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016), “an order 

denying ‘shock probation’ could also be an appealable order.” However, even if an 

order denying shock probation had been entered, that order would not be an 

appealable order and would not extend the deadline for Appellant to appeal his 

conviction. See Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 834 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 
3

1999, no pet.) (citing Houlihan v. State, 579 S.W.2d 213, 215–16 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1979)). We conclude that we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

January 9, 2020

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating. 

 1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.