Armando Lozano v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 14, 2013
• Docket: 01-13-00180-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued May 14, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-13-00180-CR ——————————— ARMANDO LOZANO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1309791

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Armando Lozano, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of

aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). The

trial court’s judgment contains an affirmative finding regarding the use of a deadly

weapon. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 3g(a)(2) (West Supp. 2012). After judgment was entered, Lozano filed a motion for judgment nunc pro

tunc, seeking to remove the deadly weapon finding from the judgment. The trial

court denied the motion. Lozano now attempts to appeal from the trial court’s

order denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.1

The denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not an appealable

order. See Zelaya v. State, Nos. 01-11-00977-CR, 01-11-00978-CR, 01-11-00979-

CR, 2013 WL 127439, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 10, 2013, no

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735,

735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. dism’d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 Lozano has filed a “Motion to Voluntarily Withdraw Appeal,” in which he acknowledges that the appropriate remedy to obtain review of the denial of a nunc pro tunc motion is by a petition for writ of mandamus. See Castor v. State, 205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.). Because we have no jurisdiction over this appeal, we do not address Lozano’s motion. 2