Rolando Bazanes v. The State of Texas Appeal from 362nd District Court of Denton County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00175-CR ROLANDO BAZANES APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. F-2008-0430-D ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Rolando Bazanes attempts to appeal from certain notations made by the trial court on Bazanes’s “Motion to Modify Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc.” The trial court wrote the following on Bazanes’s motion: “No action. Court no longer has jurisdiction.” On the proposed order Bazanes included with 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. his motion, the trial court wrote, “Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on this motion.” On June 7, 2017, we sent a letter to Bazanes expressing our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court had not entered any appealable orders.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). We informed Bazanes that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by June 19, 2017, we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Bazanes filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. Even if the trial court’s notations could be construed as an order denying Bazanes’s motion, “[a]n intermediate appellate court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a request for judgment nunc pro tunc because such an order is not an appealable order.” Gonzalez v. State, No. 11-17-00056CR, 2017 WL 1275540, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 31, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see Desilets v. State, 495 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2016, no pet.) (“While appeals courts have jurisdiction over appeals from a final judgment of conviction, they do not have jurisdiction over appeals from orders denying requests for the entry of judgments nunc pro tunc because no statute has been passed creating appellate jurisdiction over such appeals.”). 2 2 DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: July 13, 2017 3
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.
