Donald Ray Purvis, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Donald Ray Purvis, Appellant, filed a pro se notice of appeal “from the denial of motion for nunc pro tunc” related to the costs and fines in the sentence rendered against him.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Upon revoking Appellant's community supervision, the trial court imposed the sentence in this case on May 6, 2015.  On November 30, 2015, Appellant filed in the trial court a motion for nunc pro tunc, which the trial court denied. On December 22, 2015, Appellant filed his notice of appeal.  After the appeal was filed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that the order from which he attempted to appeal did not appear to be a final, appealable order.  We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue, and we informed him that this appeal may be dismissed.  Appellant filed a response in which he states that the order from which he appeals is a final, appealable order because the trial judge wrote “Denied 11–30–15 J. Weeks” on the motion and returned it to Appellant.

An 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.  Sims v. State, No. 05–14–01438–CR, 2014 WL 6453607, at *1 (Tex.App.—Dallas Nov. 18, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication);  Sanchez v. State, 112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.);  Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex.App.—Waco 2002, pet. dism'd).  Thus, we have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the order that Appellant specified in his notice of appeal.

Furthermore, to the extent that Appellant could be attempting to appeal from the judgment revoking his community supervision, the appeal is not timely.  Pursuant to Tex.R.App. P. 26.2(a), a notice of appeal is due to be filed either (1) within thirty days after the date that sentence is imposed in open court or (2) if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial, within ninety days after the date that sentence is imposed in open court.  The clerk's record reflects that Appellant's notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the trial court 230 days after his sentence was imposed.  Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.  Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.Crim.App.1998);  Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Crim.App.1996);  Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM