Sedrick Robinson v. State ( 1999 )

Nos. 04-99-00340-CR and 04-99-00341-CR

Sedrick ROBINSON, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 92-CR-7536 and 93-CR-0240 Honorable Phil Chavarria, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 28, 1999

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Sedrick Robinson was indicted in cause number 92-CR-7536 for delivery of cocaine to Darrell Sanders on or about June 24, 1992. He was indicted in cause number 93-CR-0240 for delivery of cocaine to Stephen Fuchs on or about June 17, 1992. Robinson pled guilty in each case and, on May 13, 1993, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the court sentenced Robinson to ten years incarceration and a fine of $250.00 in cause number 92-CR-7536 and to ten years incarceration with no fine in cause number 93-CR-0240. In each case, the court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Robinson on probation for a period of ten years. On June 11, 1995, the court granted Robinson's motion for early termination of probation in each case.

On February 5, 1999, Robinson filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in each case. The motions allege cause numbers 92-CR-7536 and 93-CR-0240 were or should have been consolidated, and the lack of a consolidation order may adversely effect his access to rehabilitation programs in the federal prison system, where Robinson is currently incarcerated. The trial court denied the motions without a hearing on March 16, 1999. On May 17, 1999, Robinson filed notices of appeal from the trial court's denials of his motions.

On June 24, 1999, after reviewing the clerk's records, we questioned whether the trial court's March 16, 1999 orders are appealable and whether Robinson's notices of appeal were timely filed. Accordingly, we ordered Robinson to show cause, no later than July 12, 1999, why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Robinson did not respond.

The notices of appeal state they were filed late because Robinson did not receive notice of the March 16, 1999 order. We need not address this issue, however, because the trial court's orders denying the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc are not appealable.

A defendant may, in certain circumstances, appeal an order nunc pro tunc that modifies the judgment against him. See Moore v. State, 446 S.W.2d 878, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Ex parte Curry, 712 S.W.2d 878, 880 (Tex. App.--Austin 1986, orig. proceeding). However, a defendant may not appeal an order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. See Scott v. State, 253 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952); c.f. Shadowbrook Apts. v. Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. 1990) (in civil case, denial of motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not appealable). Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH