## NO. 12

- 19

- 00128

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

ALEXANDRO CAMACHO, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Th is appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Alexandro Camacho, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to challenge his conviction in trial court cause number 001

- 84777

- 01. Sentence was imposed on January 30, 2002. Under the rules of appellate procedure, the notice of appeal must be filed within t hirty days after the sentence is imposed or within ninety days after sentence is imposed if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a). Rule 26.3 provides that a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal m ust be filed within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3. In this

case, Appellant filed his notice of appeal on April 5, 2019, long after the time for filing a notice of appeal under Rule 26.2(a) or for se eking a motion to extend under Rule 26.3

. On April 17 , this Court notified Appellant that the information received failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, i.e., there was 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 the notice of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2, 26.3. We informed Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed
unless the information was amended on or before April 29 to show this Court’s j urisdiction. This deadline passed without a response from Appellant. “[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 .3d2 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). T his Court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2, 26.3; see also Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Te x. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State
, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(f). Opinion delivered April 30, 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 Only the court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction to grant an out

- of

- time appeal. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Kossie v. State , No. 01

- 16

- 00738

- CR, 2017 WL 631842, at *1

- 2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 16, 2017, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because appellant could not pursue out of time appeal without permission from

co urt of criminal appeals); see T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art 11.07 § 3(a) (West 2005).

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 30, 2019

NO. 12

- 19

- 00128

- CR

ALEXANDRO CAMACHO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 001

- 84777

- 01) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. 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.