Darrell Pollock v. State ( 2002 )

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

Darrell Pollock

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-02-00080-CR B Appeal from Thockmorton County

State of Texas

Appellee

The trial court imposed the sentence on November 9, 2001.  A motion for new trial was timely filed.  Appellant filed in the district clerk=s office his notice of appeal on March 1, 2002, 112 days after the date the sentence was imposed.  On March 1, 2002, appellant also filed in this court  a motion for extension of time in which to file his notice of appeal.

In order to extend the time for perfecting an appeal, appellant was required to file both the notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time within 105 days of the date of sentencing. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3.  Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Cr.App.1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex.Cr.App.1993).  Neither appellant=s notice of appeal nor his motion for extension of time were timely filed.  Absent either a timely notice of appeal or compliance with Rule 26.3 for an extension, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.  Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.Cr.App.1998); Olivo v. State, supra; Rodarte v. State, supra; Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). Appellant may be able to secure an out of time appeal by filing a post-conviction writ pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2002).

Appellant=s motion for extension of time is overruled, and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

March 14, 2002

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., McCall, J.