C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Ronald Dwayne Whitfield v. The State of Texas

Appellate case numbers: 01

- 9 2

- 00 617

- CR

Trial court case number s : 617718

Trial court: 1 74 th District Court of Harris County

Appellant was convicted of burglary of a building with intent to commit theft and, after being enhanced by two prior felony convictions, was sentenced to 35 years in prison on June 5, 1992. On direct appeal, this C ourt issued an opinion on August 26, 1 99 3, affirming appellant’s judgment of conviction

. Whitfield v. State

, No. 01

- 92

- 00617

- CR, 1993 WL 322738, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] Aug. 26, 199 3 , pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

. Our mandate issued on March 9 , 1994, and provided , in relevant part

, the following :

T he cause came on to be heard on the re cord of the court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in th e judgment, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the Court that t he judgment be in all things AFFIRMED , and the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision b e certified below for observance.

T he Clerk of this Court previously mailed copies of the certified docket sheet, mandate, and opinion to appellant on October 20, 2009

. On March 1 3 , 2 015, appellant , proceeding pro se and incarcerated, filed an amended moti on , dated March 10, 2015, to recall our 1994 mandate

, as well as the
mandate in four other causes

, as void, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 18.7, and incorporated his prior letter

- motions to recall the mandate . Appellant apparently claims that there was no proper rendition of judgment because , among other

reasons, the criminal complaint was apparently time

- stamped when the trial clerk’s office was closed, the copy of the opinion he attached to his motions , apparently received from
th e Clerk of this Court, w as not physically signed by Justice O’Connor

, and because thecopies of the opinion and mandate , which he apparently received from the trial clerk, did

not contain the same certified file mark s as those from the Clerk of this Court

. On June 24, 2009, we had previously dismissed

, for lack of jurisdiction

, appellant’s similar pro se motion to recall our 1994 mandate as void for failure of th is C ourt to render its judgment.

In any event, a fter our mandate issued on March 9 , 1994, our plenary power expired, and we lack jurisdiction to vacate or modify our judgment. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
19.3. While Rule 19.3(b) allows us to recall our mandate as these rules provide after our plenary power has expire d , recalling our mandate o nly occurs if we have first vacated or modified our judgment , which has not occurred

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 18.7, 19.3(b).
Accordingly, appellant’s amended motion to recall the mandate is d ismissed for want of jur i sdiction

. The Court dismisses all pending motions as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: / s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: M arch 24, 2015