## NO S . 12

- 19

- 00270

- CR 12

- 19

- 00271

- CR 12

- 19

- 00272

- CR 12

- 19

- 00273

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

JOHNNY FLOYD CROCKER , APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL S FROM THE 114TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Johnny Floyd Crocker, acting pro se, appeals from his convictions in trial court cause
numbers 4

- 95

- 636 , 4

- 95

- 637, 4

- 95

- 638, and 4

- 95

- 639

. Under the rules of appellate procedure, the 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 if the
defendant time ly 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 must 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, sentence was imposed on February 16, 1996. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on August 5, 2019, 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

. On August 9 , this Co urt 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 t he notice of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2, 26.3. We informed Appellant that the appeal s would be2 dismissed unless the information was amended on or before August 19 to show this Court’s jurisdiction. 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.3d 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State
, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal s for want of jurisdiction

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(f). Opinion delivered September 11
, 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 court 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

SEPTEMBER 11 , 2019

NO. 12

- 19

- 00270

- CR

JOHNNY FLOYD CROCKER , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 4

- 95

- 636) 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.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 11 , 2019

NO. 12

- 19

- 0027 1

- CR

JOHNNY FLOYD CROCKER , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 4

- 95

- 637) 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 dismisse d 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

SEPTEMBER 11 , 2019

NO. 12

- 19

- 0027 2

- CR

JOHNNY FLOYD CROCKER , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 4

- 95

- 638) 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.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 11 , 2019

NO. 12

- 19

- 0027 3

- CR

JOHNNY FLOYD CROCKER , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 4

- 95

- 639)

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 thi s 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.