Clemente Suarez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Clemente Suarez v. State

DecidedSeptember 25, 2014

Docket03-14-00477-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Clemente Suarez v. State (Clemente Suarez v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clemente Suarez v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00477-CR

Clemente Suarez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR92-0713-A, HONORABLE BARBARA L. WALTHER, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Clemente Suarez, appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the trial court’s

denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.1 In criminal cases, unless expressly authorized

by statute, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments. Apolinar v. State,

820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02 (“A defendant

in any criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed . . . .”). An order

denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not a final, appealable order. See Abbott v. State,

271 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (no jurisdiction over appeal of post-judgment order

denying time-credit motion); Deshotel v. State, No. 14-13-01093-CR, 2014 WL 51438, at *2

1 Suarez was convicted of murder in 1993, and this Court affirmed that conviction on direct appeal. See Suarez v. State, No. 03-93-00545-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 19, 1994, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.) available at http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=03-93-00545-CR. (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 7, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(no appellate jurisdiction over denial of motion for judgment nunc pro tunc); Castor v. State,

205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.) (same). Nor does the denial create a right

to an interlocutory appeal. Castor, 205 S.W.3d at 667. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 25, 2014

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI