EX PARTE BASIL BROWN

DISMISS; Opinion issued September 11, 2008
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-08-01127-CR
............................
EX PARTE BASIL BROWN
.............................................................
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. MC03-A-0376
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Whittington, and O'Neill
Opinion By Justice Whittington
        Basil Brown was convicted of indecent exposure and punishment was assessed at 180 days' confinement in jail, probated for twenty-four months, and a $750 fine. This Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. See Brown v. State, No. 05-01-00230-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas Mar. 5, 2002, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). At a later date, appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court. On May 13, 2005, the trial court denied appellant the relief he sought. We dismissed the appeal from the May 13, 2005 order because appellant's notice of appeal was untimely. See Ex parte Brown, No. 05-08-00701-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas June 19, 2008, no pet.) (not designated for publication).
        The Court now has before it appellant's second attempt at appealing the May 13, 2005 order. In this case, appellant's July 18, 2008 notice of appeal states the appeal is being taken from the trial court's May 13, 2005 order, which was “entered into the record . . . June 20, 2008 Nunc Pro Tunc.” The order appellant refers to is the same May 13, 2005 order he sought to appeal in cause no. 05-08- 00701-CR. There is now handwritten on the bottom, “V. 43 pg 677, entered Nunc Pro Tunc.” There has been absolutely no change to the order itself.
        The time for appealing the trial court's May 13, 2005 order denying appellant's application for writ of habeas corpus passed three years ago. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a); Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam); Boyd v. State, 971 S.W.2d 603, 605-06 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.). It cannot be revived simply by having the order re- recorded in a different volume of the trial court's minute book.
        Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MARK WHITTINGTON
                                                          JUSTICE
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
081127F.U05