## NO. 12

- 22

- 00039

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

JOE MARLIN GILMER , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
O n February 28, 2022, Joe Marlin Gilmer, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal from an order of October 5, 2021 , in which the trial court denied his motion to rescind withdrawal ord er

. H e also move d for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal on grounds that he did not
receive actual knowledge of t he ruling until February 22, 20 22

. H e argues tha t “ trial officials intentionally, knowingly and deliberately delayed notice and disposition of the case regarding the denial of the Appellant ’ s Motion to Rescind Withdraw Order as a measure to preven t and im pede the Appellant ’ s rights of appeal from the de cision of the trial court to deny the Appellant ’ s Motion to Rescind Withdrawal Order. ”
On March 1 7 , the Clerk of this Court notified Gilmer tha t the information received in the appeal does not show the juris d iction of this Court, i.e., the re was no notice of appeal filed within
the time allowed b y the rules of appellate procedure and no timely motion for extension of time
to file same

. The notic e warn ed that the appeal would be dismissed unless Gilmer amende d the
notice of appeal on or before March 28 to s how this Court ’ s jurisdiction

. In r esponse, Gilmer

argues, “ due to the negligence of the District Clerk in not notifying me of the court ’ s Ord er in
accordance with Rule 306a of the Texas Rules of Civil Proc edure, I was served a death sanction for the purp ose of filing a motion for new trial and appeal in this case

. ” He asserts that his “ only2 avenue ” is a petition for bill of review and states “ under the rules it appea rs that the Court does not have jurisdic tion in this case. ” Accordingly, it a ppears tha t Gilmer concedes we are without jurisdiction over this appeal. Nevertheless, we further note that we lack jurisdiction even und er Rule 306a. If within twenty days after a judgment or other appealable orde r is signed, an adversely affected party or his

a ttorney has neither received the notice required by Rule 306a(3) nor acquired actual knowledge of the order, t h en with respect to that party all the periods mentioned in Rule 306a(1) shall b egin
on the date th at such party or his attorney received such n otice or acquired actual knowledge of the signing, whichever occurred first, bu t in no event shall such periods begin more than ninety days aft er the original judgment or other appealable orde r was signe d. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 30 6a(4)

. To establish the application of Rule 3 0 6a(4) , the party adversely affected is required to prove in
the trial court, on sworn motion and notice, the da te on which the part y or his attorney first either
received a not ice of the judgment or acquired actual knowledge of the signing and that this da te was more than twenty days after the judgment was signed. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 30 6a(5) . Comp liance
wi th Rule 306a (5) ’ s requirements is jurisdictional. Carne y v. Holder , No. 12

- 13

- 00024

- CV, 2014 WL 3939915, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Aug. 13, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. On February 2 8 , Gilmer fi led a “ no notice of appealable order ” with t he trial court. The
motion i s not sworn . Moreover , there is no order fro m t he trial court establishing the date
Gilmer received notice or a cquired actual knowledge of the order. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 4.2(c) (after hearing motion, trial court must sign written order finding date when party or part y ’ s attorney first received or acquired actual knowledge that judgme nt or order was signed). Therefore, Gilmer h as not shown the jurisdiction of this Court. 1 See Weir Bro s . Contracting,
LLC v. Velvin Oil Co. LLC , No. 12

- 21

- 00030

- CV, 2021 WL 1306702 at *2 (T ex. App.

— Tyler Apr. 7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( per curiam ) (dismis sing Weir ’ s appeal because Weir failed to provid e an order from the trial court establishing date Weir received notice or acquired ac tual knowledge of a ppealable order) ; see also Enriquez v. Livingston , No. 12

- 15

- 00225

- CV, 2016 WL 234984 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Jan. 20, 2016, n o pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction where appellant fa iled to provide order establishing date he

1 Even a pro se litigant i s he ld to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure

. Se e Muham med v. Plains Pipeline, L.P. , No. 12

- 16

- 00189

- CV, 2017 WL 266518 0, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

.3 r ecei ved notice or acquired actual knowledge of judgment). Accordingly , the appeal
is dismissed for want of jurisdict ion

. All pending motions are overrule d as moot

. Opinion delivered April 6 , 2022. Panel co nsisted of Worthen, C .J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELF TH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGM ENT

APRIL 6 , 2022

NO. 12

- 22

- 00039

- CV

JOE MAR LIN GILMER , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from th e County Court at Law

o f Van Zandt County, Texas (T r.Ct.No. CR

- 15

- 00226 )

THIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is wi thout jurisdiction of the appeal, and
th a t the ap p eal should be dismiss ed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Cou rt that
thi s appeal be, and the same is, hereby dism iss ed for want of jurisdiction ; and that this decisio n be certified to t he court below for observance.
B y per curiam opini on

. Panel consisted o f W orthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neele y, J.