                                      In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              ____________________
                                NO. 09-14-00349-CR
                                NO. 09-14-00350-CR
                              ____________________

                  MICHAEL WAYNE HANCOCK, Appellant

                                        V.

                           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________         ______________

                     On Appeal from the 75th District Court
                             Liberty County, Texas
                     Trial Cause Nos. CR28749 and CR28750
________________________________________________________         _____________

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On June 12, 2014, and June 23, 2014, the trial court signed judgments nunc

pro tunc for Cause Numbers CR28749 and CR28750, respectively. Michael Wayne

Hancock filed a notice of appeal on August 11, 2014. We notified the parties that

the appeals would be dismissed because the notice of appeal was filed outside the

time for which an extension may be granted for filing a notice of appeal. Hancock

did not file a response.




                                        1
      A judgment nunc pro tunc is an appealable order. Blanton v. State, 369

S.W.3d 894, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). To perfect an appeal, the notice of

appeal must be filed within thirty days of the date that the trial court signs the

judgment nunc pro tunc. Dewalt v. State, 417 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. App.—Austin

2013), pet. ref’d, 426 S.W.3d 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Hancock’s notice of

appeal recites that he filed a motion for new trial on July 18, 2014, but the filing of

a motion for new trial extends the time for perfecting appeal only when it is filed

within thirty days of the day sentence is imposed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2).

      “If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, the court of appeals has no option

but to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d

196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Hancock failed to file his notice of appeal within

thirty days of the date the trial court signed either judgment nunc pro tunc, and he

failed to file a motion for extension of time within fifteen days of the due date for a

notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. Therefore, we dismiss the

appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

      APPEALS DISMISSED.

                                              ________________________________
                                                      LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                           Justice
Submitted on October 14, 2014
Opinion Delivered October 15, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

                                          2
