BAZANES v. STATE

No. 02-17-00175-CR.

ROLANDO BAZANES, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, State.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Rolando Bazanes, for Appellant, Pro se.

Catherine Luft , for State of Texas.

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.


DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Rolando Bazanes attempts to appeal from certain notations made by the trial court on Bazanes's "Motion to Modify Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc." The trial court wrote the following on Bazanes's motion: "No action. Court no longer has jurisdiction." On the proposed order Bazanes included with his motion, the trial court wrote, "Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on this motion."

On June 7, 2017, we sent a letter to Bazanes expressing our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court had not entered any appealable orders.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). We informed Bazanes that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by June 19, 2017, we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Bazanes filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

FootNotes


1. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2. Even if the trial court's notations could be construed as an order denying Bazanes's motion, "[a]n intermediate appellate court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a request for judgment nunc pro tunc because such an order is not an appealable order." Gonzalez v. State, No. 11-17-00056-CR, 2017 WL 1275540, at *1 (Tex. App.-Eastland Mar. 31, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see Desilets v. State, 495 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2016, no pet.) ("While appeals courts have jurisdiction over appeals from a final judgment of conviction, they do not have jurisdiction over appeals from orders denying requests for the entry of judgments nunc pro tunc because no statute has been passed creating appellate jurisdiction over such appeals.").

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases