Charles Lee Grable v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 8, 2008
• Docket: 14-08-00071-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 8, 2008

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 8, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00071-CR

CHARLES LEE GRABLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 764,539

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from the denial of appellant=s AMotion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment Amendment.@   

Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction.  Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961);  McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161  (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1996, no pet.).  The exceptions include:  (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, Tex. R. App. P.  31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161;  and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.CDallas 1998, no pet.);  McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. 

The denial of a motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment is not an appealable order.  Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.BWaco 2002, pet dism=d); Bridwell v. State, 2007 WL 3391469 at *1 (Tex. App-Beaumont Nov. 14, 2007, no pet).  Because this appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed May 8, 2008.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Brown.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).