Lonard Keith Kildow v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed October 30, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________

No. 11-25-00268-CR
___________

LONARD KEITH KILDOW, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court
Coleman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR24-01057

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant’s trial counsel filed an untimely notice of appeal from the trial
court’s judgment of conviction. Once appointed, appellate counsel filed a motion
for extension of time to file the notice of appeal; however, the motion was filed
outside of the fifteen-day timeframe allowed for such motions. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 26.3. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
According to the documents on file in this court, Appellant was convicted by
a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony, which
was enhanced by at least one prior felony conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 12.42 (West 2019), § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West Supp. 2024). The jury assessed his
punishment at sixty years of imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court imposed Appellant’s sentence on
June 4, 2025.
Appellant’s trial counsel timely filed a motion for new trial, which operated
to extend the time for Appellant to file a notice of appeal to September 2, ninety days
from the date he was sentenced in open court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2).
However, Appellant’s trial counsel did not file a notice of appeal until September 19.
Appellant’s trial counsel contemporaneously filed a motion to withdraw with the
notice of appeal.
When this appeal was docketed, we notified Appellant by letter that his notice
of appeal appeared to be untimely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal.
See id. On October 9, the trial court appointed appellate counsel, who promptly filed
a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal after she learned that the
notice of appeal was untimely filed. In the motion, appellate counsel stated that the
late filing by Appellant’s trial counsel was unintentional and that “it is of no fault of
the Appellant that his appeal was not timely filed.”
When, as here, the defendant timely files a motion for new trial, his or her
notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the date that sentence is
imposed in open court. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2). We may grant a motion to extend
the time to file if, within fifteen days after the deadline, the defendant files the notice
of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file the notice that complies with
Rule 10.5(b). TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. Neither of the requirements of Rule 26.3
have been met. Although Appellant’s counsel explains the reasons for the
2
untimeliness of the filings, we nevertheless lack authority to extend the time for
perfecting the appeal. Therefore, we have no discretion in this matter, and we must
dismiss this appeal. Hernandez v. State, No. PD-0836-24, 2025 WL 2713312, at *1,
*3 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 24, 2025); Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1998). We note that Appellant may be able to secure an out-of-time
appeal by filing a postconviction writ of habeas corpus with the Court of Criminal
Appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2024); Ater v.
Eighth Ct. of Appeals, 802 S.W. 2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig.
proceeding).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, and we dismiss
Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal as moot. See
Hernandez, 2025 WL 2713312, at *3 (court of appeals had “no jurisdiction to do
anything except dismiss the appeal”).

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

October 30, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3