Opinion filed January 9, 2020



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ __ ____ No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 3 72

- CR

_____ _ _ _ ___ KYDRICK MARQUELL REED , Appellant
V.
THE S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 2 38 th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR 52 408

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 o f
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 th is appeal indicate that Appellant’s sentence was imposed on May 28 , 201 9 , and t hat his notice of appeal w as filed in the district2 clerk’s office on November 27 , 201 9

. When the appeal w as 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

. P ursuant to the Texas Rules of App ellate 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.
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2 6 .2( a ). A notice of appeal must be in writing and filed with the
clerk of the trial court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(c)(1 ) . The documents on file in this

court re flect that Appellant’s notice of appeal w as filed with the clerk of the trial

court 183 days after the sentence was imposed in open court

. The notice of appeal

w as 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 th is 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 comm unity 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
d enying ‘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 Dod son v. State , 988 S.W.2d 833, 834 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio3 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 t h is appeal fo r want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

January 9, 2020 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey
, C. J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S. C.J. 1

W illson, J., not participating.

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