Opinion
NO. 02-12-00382-CR
10-25-2012
DEDRIC D. WILSON APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant Dedric D. Wilson appeals from the trial court's order denying his "Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea Nunc Pro Tunc," in which he contends that his trial counsel was ineffective regarding his 2001 conviction and sentence. In late August 2012, we informed Appellant by letter of our concern that we do not have jurisdiction over his appeal and stated that his appeal could be dismissed unless he or any party filed within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant's response does not show valid grounds for continuing the appeal.
An order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not appealable. Further, to the extent that Appellant asks us to interpret his complaint "under whatever law or procedure that is allowed to correct the clear Constitutional errors that were made," an intermediate appellate court does not have jurisdiction over matters related to article 11.07 applications for writs of habeas corpus. We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
SeeEx parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (providing that appropriate remedy for denial of motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is to file mandamus petition in court of appeals); Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. dism'd).
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, §§ 3, 5 (West Supp. 2012); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) ("Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.").
See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
--------
PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)