Clemente Suarez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 51st District Court of Tom Green County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00477-CR Clemente Suarez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR92-0713-A, HONORABLE BARBARA L. WALTHER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Clemente Suarez, appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the trial court s denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.1 In criminal cases, unless expressly authorized by statute, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02 ( A defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed . . . . ). An order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not a final, appealable order. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (no jurisdiction over appeal of post-judgment order denying time-credit motion); Deshotel v. State, No. 14-13-01093-CR, 2014 WL 51438, at *2 1 Suarez was convicted of murder in 1993, and this Court affirmed that conviction on direct appeal. See Suarez v. State, No. 03-93-00545-CR (Tex. App. Austin Oct. 19, 1994, pet. ref d) (mem. op.) available at http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=03-93-00545-CR. (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 7, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (no appellate jurisdiction over denial of motion for judgment nunc pro tunc); Castor v. State, 205 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App. Waco 2006, no pet.) (same). Nor does the denial create a right to an interlocutory appeal. Castor, 205 S.W.3d at 667. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). __________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: September 25, 2014 Do Not Publish 2

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.