Alfred Lee Rice v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)
• Decided: February 12, 2026
• Docket: 11-25-00260-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed February 12, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-25-00260-CR __________

ALFRED LEE RICE JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 441st District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR51461

MEMORANDUM OPINION On September 10, 2025, Appellant, Alfred Lee Rice Jr., filed a pro se notice of appeal seeking to appeal the trial court’s failure to rule on or otherwise respond to his motions for judgment nunc pro tunc. When this appeal was docketed, the clerk of this court informed Appellant by letter that it did not appear that he had a present right to appeal under the circumstances. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal and informed him that the appeal was subject to dismissal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Appellant did not file a response. An appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant from a final judgment of conviction or as otherwise authorized by law. Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); McKinney v. State, 207 S.W.3d 366, 374 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2018); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). A trial court’s denial or failure to rule on a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not appealable. See Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (per curiam). Instead, “[i)f the trial court denies the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or fails to respond, relief may be sought by filing a[] [petition] for writ of mandamus in a court of appeals.” Id. We note that after Appellant filed a notice of appeal, he sought the same relief by filing a petition for writ of mandamus in this court, which is docketed under appellate cause no. 11-25-00269-CR. Because the trial court’s failure to rule is not appealable, we are without jurisdiction to consider it on direct appeal. See Florence, 319 S.W.3d at 696. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE February 12, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.