Steve Alvarado v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County

Annotate this Case
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-02-00735-CR
Steve ALVARADO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 85th Judicial District Court, Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 19,299-85
Honorable J.D. Langley, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 15, 2003

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant's sentence was imposed on October 16, 1990. On August 8, 2002, the trial court entered an order denying appellant's motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment; however, the trial court entered a judgment nunc pro tunc on its own motion.

On September 3, 2002, appellant filed a notice of appeal. It appeared to this court that appellant was seeking to appeal the trial court's order denying his motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment. Accordingly, on November 20, 2002, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no statute vests this court with jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a request for a judgment nunc pro tunc. See Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, pet. dism'd). On December 23, 2002, appellant responded to our prior order, stating that he does not seek to appeal the denial of his motion but seeks to appeal the judgment. The time for filing a notice of appeal in criminal cases runs from the date the sentence is imposed in open court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2. Appellant's second notice of appeal was not timely filed. In addition, appellant previously appealed the underlying judgment, and the judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals. See Alvarado v. State, 822 S.W.2d 236 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd). Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.