MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00890-CR
Peter BURTON,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1990CR0764A
Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 15, 2012
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Appellant filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the trial court’s order denying his
motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc. The denial of a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc is not
an appealable order. See Caceras v. State, No. 04-10-00132-CR, 2010 WL 726884, at *1 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio Mar. 3, 2010, no pet.) (not designated for publication); Castor v. State, 205
S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.). The proper remedy to obtain review of the
04-11-00890-CR
denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is by petition for writ of mandamus. Caceras,
2010 WL 726884, at *1; Castor, 205 S.W.3d at 667.
On January 24, 2012, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by February 7, 2012,
why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On February 6, 2012, appellant
filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file his petition for writ of mandamus.
Appellant appears to have misunderstood this court’s prior order. Appellant was ordered to
show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the filing of
a petition for writ of mandamus is the proper way to obtain review of the denial of a motion for
judgment nunc pro tunc. The appellate rules governing the filing of a mandamus proceeding do
not contain a specific deadline. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to appellant’s filing of a petition for writ of mandamus
seeking relief from the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-