Opinion
NO. 03-17-00300-CR
11-09-2017
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 93-069-K277 , HONORABLE STACEY MATHEWS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Joseph Paul Mayzone, appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. In criminal cases, unless expressly authorized by statute, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments. Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether appeal is precluded by law but whether appeal is authorized by law). In criminal cases, an appeal is authorized only when a trial court "enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order." Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02 ("A defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed . . . ."). A post-judgment order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not an appealable order. See Abbott, 271 S.W.3d at 697 (holding that no rule or statutory or constitutional provision authorizes appeal of post-judgment order denying time-credit motion); Suarez v. State, 03-14-00477-CR, 2014 WL 4915211, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 25, 2014, pet. ref'd, untimely filed) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding no appellate jurisdiction over denial of motion for judgment nunc pro tunc); Deshotel v. State, No. 14-13-01093-CR, 2014 WL 51438, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 7, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (no appellate jurisdiction over denial of motion for judgment nunc pro tunc seeking to modify offense stated in judgment based on alleged agreement). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
/s/_________
Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Field, and Bourland Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: November 9, 2017 Do Not Publish