Opinion
06-22-00046-CR
04-28-2022
STEVEN DWAYNE TAYLOR, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Submitted Date: April 27, 2022
On Appeal from the 402nd District Court Wood County, Texas Trial Court No. 22, 247-2014
Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and Carter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice
Steven Dwayne Taylor was convicted of assault against a public servant, and his sentence was imposed on October 21, 2014. On December 17, 2021, Taylor filed a motion seeking entry of a nunc pro tunc judgment in the trial court. On December 20, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying Taylor's requested relief. Taylor has attempted to appeal from the trial court's December 20 order.
In Texas, a party may only appeal when the Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal. Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); see Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law."). When the Legislature passes legislation granting a right of appeal, in addition to granting its citizens that substantive right, it also grants the appellate courts of this State jurisdiction to hear such appeals. In the absence of such authorizing legislation, appellate courts are without jurisdiction and have no authority to act.
In the criminal context, the Texas Legislature has authorized appeals from written judgments and/or appealable orders. See Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The trial court's order denying Taylor's motion for the entry of a nunc pro tunc judgment is not an order from which the Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal. See Shelby v. State, No. 06-15-00189-CR, 2016 WL 350516, at *1 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Jan. 29, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In the absence of such authorization, we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
By letter dated March 31, 2022, we notified Taylor of this jurisdictional issue and afforded him an opportunity to respond. Taylor did not file a response.
Because there is no appealable order in the appellate record, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment