Armando Lozano v. State

Opinion

Opinion issued May 14, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

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 Do not publish.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.

Footnotes

1. 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.