Ronald Whit Dubose v. The State of Texas Appeal from 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-15-00444-CR Ronald Whit DUBOSE, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 07-1246-CR Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 9, 2015 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION On October 17, 2011, the trial court adjudicated Ronald Whit DuBose’s guilt for the offense of burglary of a habitation and sentenced him to six-years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On March 13, 2015, DuBose filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. On June 1, 2015, the trial court denied the motion, and DuBose filed a notice of appeal. “Neither the United States nor Texas constitution guarantees the right to appeal state criminal convictions.” Griffin v. State, 145 S.W.3d 645, 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); accord 04-15-00444-CR Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). A defendant may appeal a state criminal conviction only as authorized by statute. Griffin, 145 S.W.3d at 646; Phynes, 828 S.W.2d at 2. “No statute vests this [c]ourt with jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a request for judgment nunc pro tunc.” Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.); accord Mederos v. State, No. 04-08-00621-CR, 2008 WL 4809211, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 5, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). On August 7, 2015, we ordered Appellant to show cause in writing by August 27, 2015, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. To date, Appellant has filed no response. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Griffin, 145 S.W.3d at 646; Phynes, 828 S.W.2d at 2; Everett, 82 S.W.3d at 735. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.