NOS. 12-22-00262-CR

 12-22-00263-CR

 12-22-00264-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TRACY RAY GIBSON, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE 145TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

These appeals are being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In 2016, the court of criminal 

appeals granted habeas relief to Tracy Ray Gibson because he pleaded guilty without a full 

understanding of the applicable facts and law. See Ex parte Gibson, WR-68,962-01, 2016 WL 

8715906 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 13, 2016) (per curiam) (not designated for publication). The 

court remanded to the trial court so that Appellant could answer to the charges as alleged in the 

indictment. See id. Sentence was subsequently imposed in trial court cause numbers

F149622007, F149632007, and F149642007 on April 5, 2016. Appellant did not timely appeal. 

See Gibson v. State, No. 12-16-00267-CR, 12-16-00268-CR, 12-16-00269-CR, 2016 WL 

5930157 (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 12, 2016, pet. ref’d) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication).

On September 21, 2022, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal regarding the three trial 

court cause numbers.1 On October 12, this Court notified Appellant that the information 

1 This is not Appellant’s first attempt at perfecting an untimely appeal from the three 2016 judgments. See

Gibson v. State, Nos. 12-21-00105-CR, 12-21-00106-CR, 12-21-00107-CR, 2021 WL 3265551 (Tex. App.—Tyler 
2

received failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, i.e., there is no notice of appeal filed within 

the time allowed by the rules of appellate procedure and no timely motion for an extension of 

time to file same. We informed Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the 

information was amended on or before October 24 to show this Court’s jurisdiction. On 

November 3, Appellant filed a response, which fails to demonstrate the jurisdiction of this Court.

Under the rules of appellate procedure, a 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 after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court

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. Here,

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on September 21, 2022, long after the time for filing a notice 

of appeal under Rule 26.2(a) or for seeking a motion to extend under Rule 26.3 with respect to 

the 2016 judgments. Nor does Appellant direct this Court to any appealable order over which we 

may exercise jurisdiction.

“[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). This Court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting 

an appeal except as provided by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 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 v. State, 

918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeals for

want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).

Opinion delivered November 17, 2022. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

July 30, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Gibson v. State, Nos. 12-17-

00146-CR, 12-17-00147-CR, 12-17-00148-CR, 2017 WL 2822516 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2017, no pet.) (per 

curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Appellant’s repeated filing of such frivolous proceedings wastes 

scarce judicial and fiscal resources. See Ex parte Jones, 97 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); see also In re 

Lucas, No. 09–14–00106–CR, 2014 WL 1285396 (Tex. App.–Beaumont Mar. 26, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. 

op., not designated for publication). Further filings of this nature could be considered an abuse of the judicial 

process for which Appellant could be sanctioned. See In re Schmotzer, No. 10–15–00433–CR, 2015 WL 9462178, 

at *1 (Tex. App.–Waco Dec. 23, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also In re 

Altschul, 146 S.W.3d 754, 755 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 2004, orig. proceeding) (ordering relator to pay filing fee and 

costs incurred by the State and directing appellate court clerk to forward cost bill to the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice with directions to withdraw the amount of costs from relator’s inmate trust account).
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 17, 2022

NO. 12-22-00262-CR

TRACY RAY GIBSON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F149622007)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

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.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 17, 2022

NO. 12-22-00263-CR

TRACY RAY GIBSON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F149632007)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

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.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 17, 2022

NO. 12-22-00264-CR

TRACY RAY GIBSON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F149642007)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

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.