|
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
|
NO. 02-12-00287-CR
|
Frederick D. Pimpton |
|
APPELLANT |
|
V.
|
||
|
The State of Texas |
|
STATE |
----------
FROM THE 297th District Court OF Tarrant COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
----------
Appellant Frederick D. Pimpton appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. In late June 2012, we informed Appellant by letter of our concern that we do not have jurisdiction over his appeal because the order denying his motion does not appear to be an appealable order, and we stated that his appeal could be dismissed unless he or any party filed within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. We have received no response.
Because an order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not appealable,[2] we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.[3]
PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: September 20, 2012
|
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
|
NO. 02-12-00287-CR
|
Frederick D. Pimpton
v.
The State of Texas |
§
§
§
§
§ |
From the 297th District Court
of Tarrant County (1083396D)
September 20, 2012
Per Curiam
(nfp) |
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM
[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
[2]See Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148–49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (providing that appropriate remedy for denial of motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is to file petition for writ of mandamus in court of appeals); Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. dism’d).
[3]See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).