Opinion
No. 05-08-01465-CR
Opinion issued January 14, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F00-52462-Q.
Before Justices BRIDGES, RICHTER, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 2001, Samuel Wade Dooley pleaded guilty to and was convicted of indecency with a child. The trial court sentenced appellant to twenty years' imprisonment. That judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. Dooley v. State, No. 05-01-01914-CR (Tex.App.-Dallas Oct. 16, 2002, pet. ref'd). Appellant later filed a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc in which he sought additional credit for time served as well as other changes to the trial court's judgment as well as motions for other relief. The trial judge granted the motions to the extent that she entered a judgment nunc pro tunc giving appellant the back time credit he sought. She denied the motions in all other respects. Appellant then appealed. We directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing our jurisdiction over the appeal. Appellant filed a letter brief stating this Court has jurisdiction because the trial judge did enter a nunc pro tunc judgment and she denied appellant some of the relief he was seeking. The State did not respond. We conclude we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. The denial of a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc is not an appealable order. See Castor v. State, 205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex.App.-Waco 2006, no pet.); Allen v. State, 20 S.W.3d 164, 165 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.). The proper remedy to obtain review of the denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is by petition for writ of mandamus. Castor, 205 S.W.3d at 667 (citing Ex parte Forooghi, 185 S.W.3d 498 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (Johnson, J., concurring statement)); Allen, 20 S.W.3d at 165. Nor is the trial court's order denying appellant's motions for a free record and the other issues he raises an appealable order. See generally Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.). Finally, although appellant asserts the judge did enter a nunc pro tunc judgment, the only change she made to the judgment favored appellant-she gave him the back time credit he sought. Because we conclude there is nothing before the Court over which we have jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.