### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 84 -C R

______________________________ ROBERT L EROY CL ARK, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the F ifth J udicial District Court

Cass County , Texas Trial Court No. 2004F 00272

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r a n d M o s e l e y , JJ. Opinion by

J ustice Moseley2 O P I N I O N Robert L eroy Clark attempts to a ppeal his conviction by

a jury for the of fense of ag g ravated assault ca using se rious bod i l y i n

jury by use of a deadly wea pon. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 22.02(a) (1) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Clark' s sentenc e wa s imposed March 5, 2009. His notice of appea l was date d April 14, 2009, and filed April 16, 2009. We rec eived the c lerk' s rec ord May 8, 2009. The issue be fore us is whether Clar k timely filed his notice of appea l. We conclude that he did not and dismiss the attempted a ppeal f or wa nt of jurisdiction. A timely notice of appea l is nece ssary to invoke t his Court's jurisdiction. Ol iv o v . S tat e , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Rule 26.2(a ) of the T exas Rules of Appellate Proc edure presc ribes the time per iod in which a notice of appea l must be filed by

a def endant in orde r to perf

ect an appe al in a cr iminal case. A defe ndant' s notice of appea l is timely if filed wit hin thirty day s after the day sentenc e is imposed or suspended in ope n court, or within ninety day s after

sentenc ing if

the de fe nd ant time ly fi le s a motio n for ne w t ri a l. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26 .2 (a ); Olivo , 918 S.W .2d at 522. The
rec ord does not conta in a

ny motion for new tria l. The last date Clar k could timely

file his notice of appea l was April 6, 2009, thirty day s afte r t he day the s entenc e wa s imposed in open court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4. 1, 26 .2 (a )( 1) . F ur the r, no mot ion

fo r e xten sio n of tim e wa s fi le d in thi s Co ur t w ith in fi ft e e n d ay s o f t

he la st d a y

a llo we d f

or fi lin g the no tic e of

a pp e a l.Clark was not found indig ent by the trial cour

t, and his application wa s denied. 1 3 I n revie wing the re cord, w e also noted that Clark filed a post-c onviction ap p l ication for a court-a ppointed attorney

. This Court held in Ma sse y v . S tate , 7 5 9 S. W. 2 d 1 8 ( T e x. 1 App.—Texarkana 1988, no pet.), that a reque st for appointment of c ounsel was suff icient to confe r ju r is d ic ti on. Ma s s ey

is disti ng uishable, howe ver, be cause Massey had also re quested within that motion a copy

of the recor d, and that rec ord contained the district cler k' s written ac knowledg ment that Ma sse y

or a lly g a ve no tic e of

a pp e a l. I n th e c a se no w b e fo re us , Cla rk ' s a pp lic a tio n fo r c ourt appointed attorne y

indicates no de sire to appe al. An af fi davit of indig ence and re quest for appointment of appe llate counse l alone ca nnot serve a s the notice of ap p ea l o r as a motion for extension of time. J

arre ls v . S tat e , No. 01-01-00721-CR, 2001 WL 1301636 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Di st. ] Oc t. 2 5, 20 01 , no pe t.) (m e m. o p. , n ot d e sig nate d f or pu bli c a tio n) ; Ri v e ra v . S

tat e , 940 S.W .2d 148 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.)

.Cl ar k m ay b e entitled to an out-of- time appea l by filing a post-conviction writ of ha beas 2 corpus returna

ble to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt . 11.07 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). 4 Clark has fa iled to perfe ct his appea l. Accor dingly , we dismiss the ap p ea l for want of jurisdiction. 2

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: May 14, 2009 Date D ecide d: May 15, 2009 Pub lis h