|
|
|
|
Opinion filed April 12, 2007
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
____________
No. 11-07-00029-CR
__________
RANDY DEAN McKNIGHT, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 350th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 5913D
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The trial court originally convicted Randy Dean McKnight, upon his plea of guilty, of aggregate theft by check and assessed his punishment at confinement for eighteen months in a state jail facility and a $100 fine. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the imposition of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for five years. At the hearing on the State=s amended motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to nine of the State=s eleven allegations. The State abandoned the two allegations to which appellant entered pleas of not true, and the trial court found the remaining nine allegations to be true. The trial court then revoked appellant=s community supervision and imposed a sentence of confinement for fifteen months in a state jail facility.
The trial court imposed the sentence on January 3, 2007. A motion for new trial was not filed. In order to timely perfect an appeal, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on or before February 2, 2007. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on February 6, 2007. To extend the time for perfecting an appeal, both a motion for extension of time and the notice of appeal were required to be filed on or before February 20, 2007. Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. A motion for extension of time has not been filed. Absent a timely notice of appeal or compliance with Rule 26.3, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).
On March 8, 2007, the clerk of this court wrote the parties and advised them that the clerk=s record had been received and that it appeared that an appeal had not been timely perfected. The clerk advised appellant to respond on or before March 23, 2007, showing grounds for continuing this appeal. There has been no response to our letter of March 8.
Appellant has not established that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
April 12, 2007
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.