## NO S
. 12

- 22

- 00262

- CR 12

- 22

- 0026 3

- CR 12

- 22

- 0026 4

- CR

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

TRACY RAY GIBSON , APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL S FROM THE 145TH

JUDICIAL D ISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM These appeals are being dismissed for wa nt of jurisdictio n. In 2016, the cour t of criminal appeal s granted habeas relief to Tracy Ray Gibson because he pleaded guilty without a full understanding of the applicable facts a nd law. See Ex parte Gibson , WR

- 68,962

- 01, 2016 WL 871590 6 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. Jan. 13, 2016) (per curi am) (not designated for p ublication)

. The
court remanded to the trial court so that Appellant could answer to th e charges as alleged in the indictment. See id

. S entence was subsequently imposed in trial court cause numb ers F149622007 , F1496 3 2007 , and F1 496 4 2007 on April 5, 2016

. Appellant did not timely appeal. See Gibson v. State , No. 12

- 16

- 00267

- CR, 12

- 16

- 0026 8

- CR , 12

- 16

- 0026 9

- CR , 2016 WL 5930157 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Oct. 12, 2016, pet. ref ’ d) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). On S eptember 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 p erfecting 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.

— Tyler2 re ceived failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, i .e., t here is no notice o f 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 bef ore October 24 to sh ow this Court ’ s jurisdiction. On November 3 , Appellant filed a response, which fails to demonstr ate the jurisdiction of th is Court

. Un der the rules of appellate procedure, a notic e of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the s entence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day the trial court enters an appealable orde r , or within ninety days after the sen tence is imp osed or suspended in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26 .2(a)

. Rule 26.3 provides t hat a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal must be filed within fifteen days after the deadline for fi ling the noti ce of appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3

. Here, Appellant filed his notice of appeal on September 21, 2022 , lon g after the time for fil ing a notice of appeal under Rule 26.2(a) or for seeking a motion to extend under Rule 26.3 with respect to the 2 016 judgments

. Nor does Appellant direct this Court to any appealable order over which we may exercise juris diction. “[I]n Texas, ap peals by either the Stat e 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 ext end the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2 , 26.3 ; see also Slat on 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 appe al s for
want of jurisdiction

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(f)

. Opinion delivered November 17 , 2022

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., H oyle, J., and Neeley, J. ( DO NOT PUBLISH )
July 30, 2021 , no pet. ) (per cur iam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ; see also Gibson v. S tate , 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., no t designated for publication)

. Appellant ’ s r epeated filing of such frivolous proceedings wastes scarce jud icial an d 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). F urther filings of t his nature could be considered an abuse of the judicial process for wh ich Appellant could be sanctioned. See I n re Schmotzer , No. 10

– 15

– 00433

– CR, 2015 WL 9462178, at *1 (Tex. App.

– Waco Dec. 23, 2015, orig. proc eeding) (mem . op., not designated for publication); see also In re Altschul , 14 6 S.W.3d 754, 755 (Tex. App.

– Beaumont 2004, orig. proceeding) (ordering relator to pay filing fee and costs incu rred by the State and directing appellat e court clerk to forward cost bill to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with directions to withd raw 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

- 2 2

- 00 262

- CR

TRACY RAY GIBSON , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Ap pellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F149622007 )
THIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being consider ed, i t is the opinio n of this Court th at the ap peal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED a nd DECREED by this Cou rt that this appeal be, and the same is, he reby dism issed for want of juris diction ; and that this decision be certified t o t he court below for observance. By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neel ey, J.

## COU RT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 17, 2022

NO. 12

- 2 2

- 00 263

- CR

TRACY RAY GIBSON , Appella nt V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1496 3 2 007 )
THIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being consider ed, it is the opinion of thi s Court th at the ap peal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED a nd DECREED by this Cou rt that this appeal be, and the same is, he reby dism issed for want of juris diction ; and that this decision be certified to t he co urt below for obser vance. By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Wo rthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neel ey, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 17, 2022

NO. 12

- 2 2

- 00 264

- CR

TRACY RAY GIBSON , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1496 4 2007 )
THIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being consider ed, it is the opinion of this Court th at the ap pea l should be dismissed f or want of jurisdiction

. It is therefore ORDERE D, ADJUDGED a nd DECREED by this Cou rt that this appeal be, and the sa me is, he reby dism issed for want of juris diction ; and that this decision be certified to t he court below for observan ce. By per curiam opini on

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neel ey, J.