## NO. 12

- 23

- 00320

- CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

PHILIP J. EMERSON, JR. § § § APPEAL FROM THE
COUNTY COURT
WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On December 15, 2023, Philip J. Emerson, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to challenge a September 7, 2023, order of denial and dismissal

. 1 In a criminal case, the appellant perfec ts an appeal by timely filing a sufficient notice of appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(b)

. The notice of appeal mus t be filed (1) within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed o r sus pended in open court or after the day th e trial court enters an appealable order, or (2) within ninety days after the day sentence is impo sed or suspended in open court if the defend ant timely files a motion for new trial. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)

. The appellate c o urt 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 m oti on complying with Rule 10.5(b). T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3

. The Wood County online records do not reflect tha t Emerson file d a timely motion for new trial. He filed a pro se

1 Emerson has been declared vexatious. How ever, this is a criminal proceeding, an d the vexatious litigant statute does not appl y
. See Ex Parte Ro ss , No. 12

- 16

- 00078

- CV, 2017 WL 605090, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Feb. 15, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. o p.) (trial court abused discretion by declaring Ross vexatious b ecause his filings within applicable time frame were criminal in nature and he did not ha ve requi site number of previous civil litigations to qualify as vexatious ); see also T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 11.00 1 (2) (W est 2017) ( “Litigation” means a civil action commenced, maintained, or pendin g in any state or federal court )

.2 notice of appeal on December 15 , after expirati on o f t he time for filing a timely notice of appeal and did not file a motion for extens ion o f time

. On December 20 , 2023, this Court notified Emerson that the notice of appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, namely, there was no notice of ap peal fi led within the time allowed by the rules of appellate procedure and no timely motion for extension to file same

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 3 7. 2. We further notified Em erson that t he appeal would be dismissed unles s the information was amended on or befor e Jan uar y 2 to show the jurisdiction of the Court. Emerson filed var ious motions, but none establish the jurisdic tion of this Court

.

“ [A] ppeal s by either the State or the def endant in a criminal case a re permitted only when they are specif ically authorize d by sta tute .” State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine , 330 S.W.3 d 9 04, 915 (T ex. C rim. App. 2011). T his Court is not authorized t o extend t he time for p erfecting an appeal except as pr ovided by the Texas Rules o f Appellate Procedure. 2 See T EX

. R. A P P

. P. 2 6.2, 26. 3;

see al so Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Cr i m. A pp. 19 98) ; Olivo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 199 6)

. B ecause E merson ’ s notice of appeal was not ti mely filed and he did not file a motion for extension with t his Court within the ti me prescribe d by Ru le 26.3 , we dismiss his appea l for want of jurisdiction

. See Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522 ; see al so T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 43.2 (f). Al l pending motions are overruled as moot

.
Opinion delivered January 3, 2024

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C. J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

2 Only the cour t of c r iminal appea ls has j urisdiction to grant an out

- of

- time appea l. See Ater v. Eighth Cou rt of App ea ls , 802 S.W .2d 24 1, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Kossie v. State , No. 01

- 16

- 00738

- CR, 2017 WL 63184 2, at *1

- 2 (Tex. App

. — Houston [1st Dist.] Feb . 16 , 2 017, no pet. h .) (me m. op., not designated for publication) ( dismissing for lack o f ju risdictio n bec ause app ell ant c ould not pursue out of time appeal without permission from court of criminal appeals) ; s ee T E X

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art 11.07 § 3(a ) (W e st 2005).

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT

JANUARY 3, 2024

NO. 12-23-00320- CR

EX PARTE: PHILIP J. EMERSON, JR.

Appea l from the County Court of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 7689)
T HIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same be ing consid ered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is wi thout jurisdiction of the appeal, and th at the ap peal should be dismiss ed. It is th erefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by t his Cou rt th at th is appeal be, and the same is, hereby dis m issed for w ant of jur isdiction ; a nd that this decision be certi fied to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Wor then, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J

.