~TTf\t CourV t£ Cr\mi r\a\

MO Hi ^-ftOOOfc-CP, |MU.. U I 10 w COUBTWCflMBL/iPPaiS MAY O720]5

M,kW\\ G>m, KiKigV^on. Aft*!**** \/. filed in The 5Wrt o^ T*xas, Appellee COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS MM 08 2815 Abe,Acos,a,C,e* On Aft**l Wl V W^ DfsWdCurV- PolK County ,TexftS Trfal Cause. WO/^S^-5 reVvVlon For X)\Scct\sGWyy iMeu) Cases'. <i5IpS.U>A5 Ex^k^ici\Kla^V)x\5afl aOA 5-a. loaR Err** C.fc>e V. Luclo FloreS-O^Q IWwnh; DroS argwwVs would be.WJpW du<L"\o ^ AV-V -VVAe A^pel(an4 A/litoell Com/ Knighta) has flew g\\ien a*ty oral 5+aWMs 4o an^ atWn^s, <%*r3, or Judys o^ Vv\s sick o^ 4te story ^ be.W -VVyl fywtllaflV s4aVi«n\$ Aeed ^ be heard -to 5u^\«n-Hvj hm. a -Wue and correct sen^Kl^ qx& -Vd wst Vie V»s«A do one sid€ o-£ a story S-taWi?n\ o5? VV\^. Cose: ' Wllan-r Mdctall Corw tolqMcn is easily /wraW ;n W Aqqr^aU f\ssauH- ^ atWlv, weapon, fyptlfcw-/- ask. Kooo can We k seM+wic«d -for such ckwqt wfasn -Mere, ooas Wrkallw no phv/stoal artM made fry hfms^ and was no+ Vnd In posxsM o-f a l>a<% ooeapotf cd- 4V\e. scent- fWural Misk»r%/; Rfpeal Dismissed - February V^ Extension GranWP tor Pd-i^on ^r\*scrcfcon<wvj fctvrttuJ-M»K*i a~l, *0'5 6VQUiftds far ?jwH eu3 '- l^Ommal Uu) 1011-2> £)&r\wtwd Lau> (p41-B(i) X^ a^HaH axel's acton or rnocifen d«it© VDisc^^ ^vied,, de^nda^ Wa5 Ween te^tdl , ts 6fA^ Admendwn-r nvg>h+ ^ e$ecWe asSts+anc^ #•£ counsel. i) Crtwtried. LatO G<4(-l^ 0) U)W coawsel's ^nsfiUVtonally AePi<rwf performance deorms d*$r*Wri- &f appeal thai h^ oiwwrjt wflu/A 0£ laKen, de^wdonf Viar wa<ie oaf ^f/^reSJful IneWed-twL a55ts\av\tt od counsel c|afm enfiflii^ him +0 an a^7(aL 4) (.rfmma.1 Lcxia) 6^1-12.0) Onfal ^ aSSisW cd counsel abetter, etfter advwllvj or cor^rucMv; WpesumaWy prtduAia«4. /Writ: 1W AflfclWrV to tt r^dudWcU dhad- dhe coirts can base gu\H up>r> hearing Mlvi o»\t side cdv asdorvi. Th<t ftwtllanf also Also™*© on dhe cWwge -W- K wa* Sen^cedtor. How can ope. Individual bes^nVence4 u)\^Vi ^kmW assautr- (AltrhCl Deadly wmpon uiten no fta^ical condacf W«5 mad£ an da pisilti/e ^ndtng of a deoiW weapon ewerVtofpenecL. Thfi.

AocelWrV also teUejres -tkV h^ totfbeer? clq?f\\M o-^ 4V\e Q5stidar]ce o-f anu/tfe/, fra^f, Tk A«fciM~ Prag5 ^aV dht carr of app^/s w\l\ c^ran-VfVie. officii< Tine %ellan+ f?rwjs To -the HonorableTluciqeS of+he Coarfof Crl/nlrffl/flflfals: X am oori^ncj on behalf o^m^case.X^ould f/lfe-fo 09/ato -fk reasor>\i\g \n ixMcb ^>^^ ^ ^nctesedj) peWton for Discre-f/ona/y Reu\ew is\n ^Vie Vm Ihal ?+ is In. Xnrfia/ty mi( a+(orntu Midkatl pauis uoas In^ruc^c? b^J mi/tttf /WfcJiell KnigWty, ^ (](e ftrap appeal a%l ooas 5errkncec$ <do l\j25/zcG>. Be/ng^undfer#,«. \mp65fon ~M rv^ a-Hcm^ u;as going M* ~Qr rM oflfcil XdfdP HOt do so mM$e£ u)i rMn %<. 3o day p^rfocj a<V kfm serrfwcedp. 3o s&*m\ mon^Ks goV?vj a£V*r being "ViwisWedP -Jo #?eTetas De(Mmm\- ©£ Chnr\tr\al Tu&ftcc, audi ($ ri/n/seff nof h&rf/ia 'm-\brm^on &n +W Said appal- So "Hien X+9otH~ frrfo w\\l ou)Y\ Vw^s and wmf -b our unH~ \au) Vibury and -Pf Ifd $,r a/) Xr\Wmc\ be ^u^perx-fo redm. a ax^fV <^*>lnWt appeal ot^rm\f« Xtwte -Iten g^vtn or\^ be] fte -rame 0-£ sf^n (freeze.. f$kr beina in confecl ix). rh Urn onlv| b^ wiail a>whence fie //i Wc0 Sfartf) 6ran W^ "^ ^ afP^ XrecteutcS naffct on 2Jis)\zo\5 -\\<A\\\^ QfB^al uras dtsmtssetP do^Ho neri Mng fiyi in afinely Me -Wr 4he n^)d sko ooeald b^ 4t {\k a WrV<w -for (>sa^ona^ feouuo* ^also 5-fa-kcj)\n said W^r+foafJt would kai/e fo £\le Vne pHiVion or\ mv| Sewn- 5o a4W 5ewaJ atfempte and aUA o^ YwcMfK vMHh wvj ll+We bwuWge of rhtlaw X -M-x In^cf mv| IWesf an$ awpleM fa all on mv/ocoft- tW\^M0U "^v^oiAr 4uw and cony/deruf^. /n/Wie(l Kiaigh ron In The

Court ofAppeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

NO. 09-15-00006-CR

MITCHELL COREY KNIGHTON, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 411th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22233

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court sentenced Mitchell Corey Knighton on November 25, 2013.

Knighton filed a notice of appeal on August 14, 2014. We notified the parties that Knighton filed his notice of appeal too late to perfect an appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b). Knighton filed a response, requesting an out of time appeal, but failed to establish that his notice of appeal was timely filed or that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted an out-of-time appeal as habeas relief. See generally Tex.R. App. P. 73.

The Court finds that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. No motion for extension of time was timely filed pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. The Court finds it is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want ofjurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on February 3, 2015 Opinion Delivered February 4, 2015 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

C-1 ft> P as ^ o

en

S- O O ' 5£- « Pt >s& CD a")

* cP

-M-dV ..il •Lfi- --a ^

'J! X ^