Court Opinion

ID: 9915680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-06 11:11:18.455162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:36.488555
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00320-CR

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                           TYLER, TEXAS

EX PARTE:                                                 §       APPEAL FROM THE

PHILIP J. EMERSON, JR.                                    §       COUNTY COURT

                                                          §       WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                            PER CURIAM

         On December 15, 2023, Philip J. Emerson, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to
challenge a September 7, 2023, order of denial and dismissal. 1
         In a criminal case, the appellant perfects an appeal by timely filing a sufficient notice of
appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(b). The notice of appeal must be filed (1) within thirty days after
the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or after the day the trial court enters an
appealable order, or (2) within ninety days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in
open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). The
appellate court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after the
deadline for filing the notice, the party files in the trial court the notice of appeal and files in the
appellate court a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b). TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. The Wood County
online records do not reflect that Emerson filed a timely motion for new trial. He filed a pro se

          1
            Emerson has been declared vexatious. However, this is a criminal proceeding, and the vexatious litigant
statute does not apply. See Ex Parte Ross, No. 12-16-00078-CV, 2017 WL 605090, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb.
15, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (trial court abused discretion by declaring Ross vexatious because his filings
within applicable time frame were criminal in nature and he did not have requisite number of previous civil
litigations to qualify as vexatious); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.001(2) (West 2017)
(“Litigation” means a civil action commenced, maintained, or pending in any state or federal court).
notice of appeal on December 15, after expiration of the time for filing a timely notice of appeal
and did not file a motion for extension of time.
         On December 20, 2023, this Court notified Emerson that the notice of appeal failed to
show the jurisdiction of the Court, namely, there was no notice of appeal filed within the time
allowed by the rules of appellate procedure and no timely motion for extension to file same. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2. We further notified Emerson that the appeal would be dismissed unless the
information was amended on or before January 2 to show the jurisdiction of the Court. Emerson
filed various motions, but none establish the jurisdiction of this Court.
         “[A]ppeals 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). This Court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal
except as provided by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2 See TEX. R. APP. 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). Because Emerson’s notice of appeal was not timely
filed and he did not file a motion for extension with this Court within the time prescribed by Rule
26.3, we dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; see also
TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). All pending motions are overruled as moot.

Opinion delivered January 3, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

         2
           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 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 11.07 § 3(a) (West 2005).

                                                          2
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                          JUDGMENT

                                          JANUARY 3, 2024

                                        NO. 12-23-00320-CR

                            EX PARTE: PHILIP J. EMERSON, JR.

                                   Appeal from the County Court
                             of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 7689)

                   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.