## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 24 - 00024 - CR ANTHONY RAY RAMOS , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 2

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No . 1608923 , Honorable Wayne F. Salvant , Presiding 

### July 3 1 , 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH , J J . Appellant appeals from a nunc pro tunc judgment signed on November 18, 2022, by Criminal District Court No. 2 of Tarrant County, Texa s . 1 The nunc pro tunc judgment,

1 This appeal was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court by a docket - equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

obtained on the State’s motion, corrected an April 2020 judgment to reflect that Appellant’s conviction was for a state jail felony instead of a second - degree felony . 2 On appeal, Appellant does not challenge the nunc pro tunc judgment but argues that the correction necessitates reducing his sentence from fifteen years to two years to reflect a non - enhanced state jail felony (thereby reducing his plea - bargained sentence from fifteen years of confinement to two years ) . We decline Appellant’s request . A judgment nunc pro tunc is appropriate to correct discrepancies between the court’s records and the actual judgmen t . Collins v. State , 240 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Clerical errors that are correctable without judicial reasoning can be amended through a nunc pro tunc order . Ex parte Poe , 751 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). In this case, Appellant received a state jail felony punished as a second degree felony , but the records simply reflected a second - degree felony. However, even if Appellant’s legal position were viable, our ability to grant the relief sought is restricted by our jurisdiction . Our appellate jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the validity of the nunc pro tunc entry and does not extend to the underlying conviction or ancillary matters . See Moore v. State , 446 S.W.2d 878, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Blanton v. State , 369 S.W. 3d 894, 900, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). The Second Court of Appeals, from which this appeal is transferred, has previously applied this jurisdictional

2 In a 2020 plea agreement, Appellant signed Written Plea Admonishments indicating he would be convicted of a “state jail felony punished as a second - degree felony,” with a corresponding term of two to twenty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. His fifteen - year sentence aligns with the State’s recommended term. By pleading guilty, Appellant acknowledge d “[his] attorney provided [him] fully effective representation,” and he “waived all rights given to [him] by law; whether of form, substance, or procedure under Art. 1.14, TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.”3

principle, recognizing the limited ability of an appellate court to review a nunc pro tunc order. Loftin v. State , No. 02 - 11 - 00366 - CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9497, at *6 – 7 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth Nov. 15, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (collected cases cited therein). Appellant’s request for the Court to reassess his sentence would require a review of ancillary issues over which we have no jurisdiction. Because Appellant does not challenge the propriety of the trial court’s nunc pro tunc order, a matter within our jurisdiction, we overrule Appellant’s issues and dismiss the appeal.

Lawrence M. Doss Justice Do not publish.