Senrick Wilkerson v. State ( 2015 )

Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 21, 2015
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-01202-CR
No. 05-15-01203-CR
SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-01183-J, F10-01184-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Brown
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Senrick Wilkerson was convicted of sexual performance by a child and sexual assault of
a child. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, as were the appeals from the denial of
his motion for post-conviction DNA testing related to the convictions. Wilkerson v. State, Nos.
05-11-00061–00062-CR, 2012 WL 2877623 (Tex. App.––Dallas July 16, 2012, pet. ref’d)
(convictions); Wilkerson v. State, Nos. 05-14-00007–00008-CR, 2015 WL 139387 2015 WL
139387 (Tex. App.––Dallas Jan. 12, 2015, no pet.) (DNA). The Court now has before it
appellant’s “motion for appeal” to which is attached a copy of a “motion to enter nunc pro tunc
order” to correct inaccuracies in the judgments. Appellant asserts he filed the motion on
September 21, 2015. Appellant complains in the letter accompanying his notice of appeal that
the trial court does not respond to the motions he files.
We note that the notice of appeal and the motion for nunc pro tunc judgment do not
contain the file-stamp of the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office. We received correspondence
from the Dallas County District Clerk stating that appellant did not file the documents with that
office. If a notice of appeal is filed with this Court, the date on which it is received will be
recorded and the notice will be sent to the trial court clerk. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). Rule
25.2(c)(1), however, does not apply to appellant’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. That
motion must be filed with the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 23.1. Appellant may not file a
motion to correct the trial court’s judgment in this Court, nor may he use this Court as an
alternative filing office for documents directed to the trial court.
Because appellant’s notice of appeal attacks no judgment or order over which we have
jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeals.
/Carolyn Wright/
Do Not Publish CAROLYN WRIGHT
TEX. R. APP. P. 47 CHIEF JUSTICE
151202F.U05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-15-01202-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F10-01183-J.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Myers and Brown participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
Judgment entered October 21, 2015.
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-15-01203-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F10-01184-J.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Myers and Brown participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
Judgment entered October 21, 2015.
–4–