DISMISSED and Opinion Filed this August 15 , 2013.

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 13
- 00516
- CR No. 05
- 13
- 00517
- CR

DONALD GENE BLANTON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 86th District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 23078
- 86 , 23592
- 86
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Myers , and Evans Opinion by Justice Lang Donald Gene Blanton appeals from the tria l court’s denial of his motion s for nunc pro tunc judgment entered in these cases. The trial court has filed a certi fication indicating appellant “is attempting to appeal [the trial court’s] denial of a motion which is not a proper motion for judgment nun c pro tunc and not otherwise an appealable order.” Without addressing the merits of the trial court’s reasoning for denying appellant’s motions, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. In its March 28, 2013 and April 1, 2013 order s , the trial court explained that appellant was attempting to obtain “a judicial determination regarding the validity or admissibility of prior convictions alleged for enhancement or offered in evidence at punishment.” The trial court
stated it could corre ct clerical errors but not those resulting from judicial reasoning and it– 2

–

determined each of appellant’s motion s was “not a proper request for entry of judgment nunc pro
tunc.” 1 An order denying a motion seeking nunc pro tunc relief is not appealable. Se e Sanchez v.
State , 112 S.W.3d 311 , 312 (Tex .App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg 2003, no pet.) (no jurisdiction to review order denying a request for judgment nunc pro tunc to correct jail time credit); Everett
v. State , 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, pet. ref’d) (no jurisdiction over appeal from order denying judgment nunc pro tunc); Allen v. State , 20 S.W.3d 164 , 165 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (an order denying judgment nunc pro tunc is not appealable, th e court of appeals has no jurisdiction, and the correct way to attack it is with a mandamus proceeding).
See also Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694 , 696

– 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding court of appeal lacked jurisdiction to review appeal challenging tria l court order denying defendant’s
motion se eking additional time credit); State v. Ross , 953 S.W.2d 748, 752 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (dicta suggesting mandamus rather than appeal is the remedy if the trial court denies the State’s motion for a nunc pro tunc order). We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 130516F.U05

1 The record on appeal contains the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in cause no. 05

- 13

- 00517

- CR. In response to an order from this Court, the Kaufman County Clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record in cause no. 05

- 13

- 00516

- CR purporting to conta in appellant’s motion for entry of judgment nunc pro tunc in that case but actually containing a duplicate copy of the motion in cause no. 05

- 13

- 00517

- CR. /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
DONALD GENE BLANTON, Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 00516

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 86th District Court, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23078

- 86. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices Myers and Evans participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered this 15 th day of August, 2013.

/Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE– 4

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DONALD GENE BLANTON, Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 00517

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 86th District Court, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23592

- 86. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices Myers and Evans participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered this 15th day of August, 2013.

/ Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE