DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 30, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 00678
- CR No. 05
- 14
- 00679
- CR No. 05
- 14
- 00680
- CR SENRICK WILKERSON , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F08
- 60213
- J, F10
- 01183
- J, F10
- 01184
- J 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and FitzGerald Opinion by Jus tice O’Neill Senrick Wilkerson filed a motion to receive credit towards his sentences for the time he was on bond following his arrest until he was sentenced in these cases. The trial court denied the motion by written order. These appeals followed. We conclude we have no jurisdiction over the appeals. “Jurisdiction concerns the power of a court to hear and determine a case.” Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The jurisdiction of an appellate court must be legally invoked, and, if not, the power of the court to act is as absent as if it did not exist. See id. at 523. As a general rule, an appellate court may consider appeals by criminal defendants only
after conviction. Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

–– Dallas 1998, no pet.). A court of appeals has no jurisdiction over an appeal absent a written judgment or an appealable– 2

– order. See Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Nikrasch v. State , 698 S.W.2d 443, 450 (Tex. App.

–– Dallas 1985, no pet.). An order denying a motion seeking nunc pro tunc relief is not appealable. See Sanchez v.
State , 112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.

–– Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (per curiam); Everett v.
State , 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.

–– Waco 2002, pet. ref’d); Allen v . State , 20 S.W.3d 164, 165 (Tex. App.

–– Texarkana 2000, no. pet.). See also State v. Ross , 953 S.W.2d 748, 751

– 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (suggesting mandamus as way to seek relief from ordering denying motion for judgment nunc pro tunc).
We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47
140678F.U05 /Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00678

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F08

- 60213

- J. Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, Justices Moseley and FitzGerald participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 30th day of June, 2014.– 4

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00679

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10

- 01183

- J. Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, Justices Moseley and FitzGerald participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 30th day of June, 2014.– 5

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00680

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10

- 01184

- J. Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, Justices Moseley and FitzGerald participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 30th day of June, 2014.