## NO. 12-09-00200-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

JAMES W. SANDER S, § APPEAL F ROM THE 217TH APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OFTEX

AS, APP ELL EE § AN GE LI NA CO UN TY

, T EXAS
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM This appea l is being di smissed for want of j urisdiction. Appellant wa s convicted of burglary of a bu ild ing a nd c ri min a l mis c hie f. Pun ish me nt wa s a sse sse d a t imp ri so nme nt fo r tw o y ears, probate d for f

ive yea rs. Pu rs u an t t o t he State’s motion, Appellant’s c ommunity s upervision was revoke d, and he w as sentenc ed to imprisonment f or two year s. Acc ording to the judgment, sentence was imposed on May 5, 2009. Texa s Rule of Appellate Procedur e 26.2 provide s that an appe al is perf ecte d when notice of
app e a l is fi le d w ith in thirty d a ys a ft e r the da y sen te nc e is impo se d o r s us pe nd e d in op e n c ou rt un le ss
a motion for new trial is tim ely filed. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)( 1). Whe re a timely moti on for ne w tr ia l ha s b e e n f

ile d, no tic e of

app e a l sh a ll be fi led wi th in nin e ty d a ys a ft e r the da y s e nte nc e is imposed or suspended in ope n court. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)( 2). To be timely, a motion for ne w trial in a criminal case mus t b e fi l ed n o l ater than thirty days afte r the da y sentenc e is imposed or suspended in open c ourt. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 21.4(a). He re, se ntence was imposed on May 5, 2009. Ap pe lla nt d id no t f

ile his mot ion fo r n e w t

ri a l un til Ju ne 10 , 2 00 9. Be c a us e Ap pe lla nt f ile d h is mot ion fo r n e w t

ri a l mo re than th irty day s a ft e r the da y s e nte nc e wa s impo se d, the mot ion is untimely. See id . There fore , his not i ce o f appe al was due to have be en filed on or befor e June 4, 2009. Appellant did not file his notice of appe al until June 25, 2009 and did not file a motion for2

extension of tim e to file his notice of appea l as permitted by Te xas Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 26.3. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3 (appellate court may extend time f or filing notice of appea l if , within fifteen days af ter de adline for

filing notice o f ap p ea l , appellant f iles notice of a

ppeal in trial c ourt and motion complying wit h Texa s Rule of Appellate Procedur e 10.5(b) in appellate c ourt). On July 10, 2009, this court notified Appellant that the motion for ne w t ri al ap p ea rs t o be untimely and, there fore , his notice of appe al is untimely. Appellant was further notified that the appea l would be dismissed unless, on or befor e July 20, 2009, the i nformation filed in the appeal was amende d to show the jurisdictio n o f t h i s court. On July 21, 2009, Appe llant filed a motion for
e xte ns ion of tim e to fi le the no tic e of app e a l a sse rt ing that th e jud gme nt i n th e c a se c on fl ic ts w ith the tr ia l c ou rt ’s do c ke t sh e e t. Ap pella nt f urthe r a sse rt s th a t A pp e lla nt w a s n ot s e nte nc e d u nti l Ma y 1 2, 20 09 , makin g hi s mo ti on fo r n e w t ri a l ti me ly. Ap pe lla nt a lso pr ov ide d th is c ou rt a document entitled “Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment Revoking Communi ty Supervision.” Howeve r, that jud gme nt r e la te s to a

tr ia l c ou rt

c a us e nu mbe r andof

fe ns e that are no t th e su bje c t of thi s a pp e al. Ac c or din gly , th e nu nc pr o tu nc jud gme nt d oe s n ot es ta bli sh that the da te se nte nc e wa s impo se d in this cause diff

ers f rom the date rec ited in the judgment being appea led. Alternati v el y, Appellant reque sts an extension of time for filing his notice of appea l. Texa s Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 26.3 provides that a motion for e xtension of time to file a notice of a ppeal must be filed w ithin fifteen days of the de adline for

filing the notice of a

ppeal. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3. Acc ordingly, Appellant
wa s r e qu ir e d to fi le his mot ion on or be fo re Ju ne 19 , 2 00 9. Be c a us e the mot ion wa s n ot f ile d u nti l July 21, 2009, it was untimely. See id . Appellant has not e stablished that his notice of appe al was timely filed. Bec ause this court has no authority to al l ow the late f iling of a notice of a

ppeal e xcept a s provided by Rule 26.3, the appea l must be dismiss ed. See Sla ton v . St ate , 9 81 S.W .2 d 2 08 , 2 10 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ); Olivo
v . St ate , 9 18 S .W. 2d 519, 52 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ). Ac c or din gly , A pp e lla nt’ s mo tio n is
ov e rr ule d, a ndthe app e a l is dismiss ed for want of juri sdiction

. Opinion delivere d July 31, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J. (DO N OT PUBLISH)