Ronald Wayne Schofield v. State ( 2014 )

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
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Do not publish.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).
2