Arthur David Lowe v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 30, 2024
• Docket: 01-23-00904-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued January 30, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00903-CR NO. 01-23-00904-CR ——————————— ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 659156 & 659154

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Arthur David Lowe is attempting to appeal from the trial court’s

order denying Lowe’s motions for judgment nunc pro tunc that were filed in both

trial court causes. We dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. “The right to appeal in criminal cases is conferred by statute, and a party may

appeal only from a judgment of conviction or an interlocutory order as authorized

by statute.” Shannon v. State, Nos. 01-21-00040-CR and 01-21-00041-CR, 2022

WL 3722321, at * 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2022, no pet.) (mem.

op., not designated for publication) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02 and

Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)). If jurisdiction to

review an interlocutory order in a criminal case has not been expressly conferred by

statute, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. See Ragston, 424 S.W.3d

at 52. The orders Lowe attempts to appeal are neither criminal convictions nor

appealable interlocutory orders.

Appellant relies on Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

as support for his assertion that this Court has jurisdiction, but Blanton involved the

trial court’s entry of judgment nunc pro tunc, not the denial of a request for judgment

nunc pro tunc. Thus, Blanton is inapplicable here. This Court has so held in a

previous opinion. See Lowe v. State, No. 01-19-00389-CR, 2020 WL 2026368, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not

designated for publication) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction because denial

of motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not an appealable order).

2 Because no statute confers jurisdiction for this Court to review the trial court’s

order denying Lowe’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, we dismiss these appeals

for lack of jurisdiction. See id. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).