Van Watson, Jr. v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 10, 2014
Docket01-14-00060-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Van Watson, Jr. v. State (Van Watson, Jr. 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
Van Watson, Jr. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Opinion issued April 10, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00060-CR ——————————— VAN WATSON, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 699312

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Van Watson, Jr., pleaded guilty to the felony offense of

aggravated sexual assault of a child and the trial court sentenced appellant to thirty

years’ confinement. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2013); see

also In re Watson, No. 01-11-00626-CR, 2011 WL 3820953, at *1 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 25, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for

publication) (noting that appellant was convicted of felony offense of sexual

assault of a child). Appellant later filed a “motion for nunc pro tunc to correct

judgment and sentence.” The trial court denied the motion and appellant now

attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order denying his motion for judgment

nunc pro tunc. We dismiss the appeal.

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

order. See Lozano v. State, No. 01-13-00180-CR, 2013 WL 2106570, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication); 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 this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.

Do not publish.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

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

Related

Everett v. State
82 S.W.3d 735 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Van Watson, Jr. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-watson-jr-v-state-texapp-2014.