Ronald Wayne Schofield v. State

Opinion issued June 5, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00321-CR ——————————— RONALD WAYNE SCHOFIELD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case Nos. 34910 (Counts I & II)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ronald Wayne Schofield, attempts to appeal from an order of the trial court denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. 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 *2 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); see also Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“If the trial court denies the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or fails to respond, relief may be sought by filing an application for writ of mandamus in a court of appeals.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.

Do not publish.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