11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

Manuel Jessie Mendez

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-02-00001-CR B Appeal from Palo Pinto County

State of Texas

Appellee

The jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery and assessed his punishment at confinement for life and a $10,000 fine.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The clerk=s record reflects that the sentence was imposed in open court on June 6, 2001.  A motion for new trial was not filed.  Pro se notices of appeal were filed on August 20, 2001, and on October 26, 2001.  Neither of these pro se notices was timely pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a).  On December 18, 2001, counsel was appointed for appellant. 

When the clerk=s record was received in this court, the parties were notified that it appeared that an appeal had not been timely perfected.  Appellant=s counsel has replied to this court=s January 14, 2002, letter by filing a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal.  Counsel states in his motion that he had represented appellant at the trial and that he had discussed the filing of a motion for new trial with appellant 7 days after the sentence was imposed in open court.  When appellant told counsel that he wanted to appeal, counsel explained to appellant that Athe appeal would be costly.@  Appellant told counsel that appellant=s family would be contacting counsel.  Counsel further states in his motion that, at the time of sentencing, he explained to appellant=s common-law wife that  Aan appeal would be costly@ and that an appeal must be perfected within 30 days.  Counsel states that he was not contacted by appellant, by appellant=s common-law wife, or by appellant=s mother.  Counsel was subsequently appointed to represent appellant on appeal.

Absent a timely notice of appeal or the timely filing of a motion for extension and the actual filing of notice appeal, an appeal is not perfected.  TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2,  26.2, and 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).  The motion is not timely and is overruled.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

January 31, 2002

Do not publish.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

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

Wright, J., and McCall, J.