2. S5'(S
No. 02-14-00498-CR
(Case No. 0557784D)
ORIGINAL
EXPARTE From the
FILED IN SECOND DISTRICT COURT
DARRELL WAYNE PHILLIPS
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
V.
MAR 09 2315 COURT OF APPEALS IN
THE STATE OF TEXAS Abel Acosta, Clerk TARRANT COUNTY^E^§JVED 0M
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
MAR 09 2015
REQUEST "FOR"DISCRETIONARY-REVIEW
TO THE HONORABLE CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS: SSt
COMES NOW, FOR CONSIDERATIONS: the petitioner in the above styled and
numbered cause and case, without the assistance of counsel, respectfully ask
for this Criminal Court's considerations and judicial powers: To instruct the
lower Courts to make the District Clerk's docket recordings available for its
examinations, concerning [Appellant]-Petitioner's DNA proceedings on filings
by all parties involved, including the Court's Reporters Record for purposes of
determinations as to; "Whether defendant [Appellant] made timely filings in
this case, and issues warrant a remand."
The Appellant's Appeal in this cause challenges the fundamental fairness
of his entire proceedings. The Statutory and Constitutional violations that
involves "False misleadings and Misconduct" affecting the fairness of his DNA
Trial proceedings. See DarrelT Wayne Phillips, No.0557784D (213th Dist. Fort
Worth, Tex. May 2, 2014); See also additional Pro se filings, Objections and
Request for Evidentiary considerations,, ie to correct falsehood( June 9, 2014,
July 6, 2014-through^January 22, 2015, id State v Phillips and In re Darrell
Wayne Phillips, No.02-14-00498-CR(2nd Dist. Ft. Worth, Tex. Jan. 22, 2015)
Dismissing Appeals due to Appellant's untimely filings and Attorney of Record
filingss agreeing that the Court lack jurisdiction in this matterl
The Appellant-Petitioner must be allowed a hearing to show that any and
all untimiely filings allegations, in this matter was not his fault or true.
That he has shown great diligence on his part to asure the Honorable justices
in this matter, that he does not wish to abandon [t]his Appeal, and didnot file
any document agreeing the Appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Appellant was not appointed Counsel and didnot consent to or consult
with any attorney concerning this case. Appellant didnot recieve notice or
possess any documentations from the Courts or alleged appointed counsel who
file documents in appellant's behal, without the appellant's concient.
CONCLUSIONS
WHEREFORE, PROMISES CONSIDERED, the Petitioner prays the Honorable Court
of Criminal Appeals Grant this request, in all fairness, order that required
records be submitted for a determination of remand and reversal of Appeals
Court't dismissal.
Respectfully submitted
Darrell W. Phillips
#712352 Huntsville
815 12th Street
Huntsville, Tx, 77348
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify thaT ON THE DAY OF 2015 a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Request was forwarded to the attorney for State
Tarrant Count. Texas
Darrell W. Phillips
ID# 712352 H/V unit
(2)
No. 02-14-00498-CR
(Case NO.0557784D)
STATE OF TEXAS IN THE CRIMINAL COURT
V. OF APPEALS
DARRELL WAYNE PHILLIPS AUSTIN, TEXAS
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the foregoing Request for
Discretionary Review is hereby GRANTED / DENIED on this the day
of 2015.
Judge presiding
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00489-CR
DARRELL WAYNE PHILLIPS APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 0557784D
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
On June 9, 2014, the trial court denied appellant's pro se motion
requesting DNA testing, which he filed under chapter 64 of the code of criminal
procedure.2 After the due date for a notice of appeal but within the time period
1SeeTex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 64.01-05 (West 2006 & Supp.
2014).
for requesting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, appellant filed a
notice of appeal.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3; see also Swearingen v.
State, 189 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ("[A] DNA movant must meet
applicable filing and time requirements found in the Rules of Appellate
Procedure."). But he did not file a timely motion to extend the time to file his
notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Later, appellant filed a "subsequent"
notice of appeal. The trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant on
appeal.
On December 5, 2014, we sent a letter to appellant that expressed our
concern that we lack jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely.
We informed appellant that unless he filed a response showing grounds for
continuing the appeal, it could be dismissed. Appellant filed a response in which
he agreed that we lack jurisdiction and conceded that dismissal is appropriate.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
25.2(b), 26.2(a), 26.3(b), 43.2(f); see also Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522
(Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ("When a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen-day
[extension] period but no timely motion for extension of time is filed, the appellate
court lacks jurisdiction."); Brock v. State, No. 02-14-00310-CR, 2014 WL
Appellant's original notice of appeal bears a file-stamped date of July 22,
2014. His certificate of service on the notice of appeal states that he sent it to
the district clerk on July 13, 2014.
5492730, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (applying Olivo).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 22, 2015