### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 22
- 00750
- CR N O . 03
- 22
- 00751
- CR

John Paul Desmarais , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO S . 78134 & 81558 , THE HONORABLE JAMES L. REX , JUD GE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant John Paul Desmarais, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, has filed two pro se documents seeking permission to appeal his convictions for

r etaliation and “ obstruction or reta l iation ” in cause numbers 78134 and 81558 , respectively, which the district clerk forwarded to this Court as notices of appe al. 1 See Tex. P enal Co de § 36.06 (c)

.

1 Although De smarais asserts in the pleadings that we “ ha ve the au th ority to file an 11.07 [applicat i on for w rit of habea s corp us] on [his] behalf , ” it is clear from their substance that he is attempting to appea l direct ly the t rial court ’ s judgments of conviction. See Surgitek, Bristol

- Myers Corp. v. Abel , 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (courts look t o substance of pleadin g rather than its form or caption to determine its nature). Rega rdless, even were we to c onstrue the p leadings as original application s for writ of habeas cor pus, we would lack jur isdiction. See Dodson v. State , 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 ( Tex. A pp.

— San Antonio 1999, n o pet.) (“The courts of appeals have no original habeas corpus jurisdict ion in cri minal matters; their jurisdiction is appe llate only.”)

.2 Desmarais has already appealed bo th con victions, and mandate has issued. See
Desmarais v. S t ate , No. 03

- 21

- 00450

- CR, 2021 WL 4465976, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Sept. 30, 2021, pet. ref ’ d) (mem. op. , n ot designated for publication) ( dismissin g appeal for want of jurisdiction because conviction was result of plea bargain , and trial court certified t h at appellant had no right to appeal ) ; Desmarais v. State , No. 03

- 21

- 0045 1

- CR, 2021 WL 44659 91 , at *1 (Tex. App

. — Austin Sept. 30, 2021, pet. ref ’d) (mem. op. , n ot designated for publication) (same)

. He is not entitled to a second appeal of either convicti o n , s ee Hines v. State , 70 S.W. 955 , 957 (Tex. Crim. App. 1902) (“[O]nly one appeal can be made from a verdict and judgment of conviction in any case.”) , and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the present a ppeals , s ee McDonald v. State , 401 S.W.3d 3 60, 361

– 63 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2013, pet. ref ’ d) (dismissin g for want of jurisdiction defendant ’ s subsequent a ppeal of conviction that had previously been affirmed) ; Waggoner v. State , No. 03

- 22

- 00051

- CR, 2022 WL 425987, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Feb. 11, 2 0 22 , n o pet. ) (mem. op., not d esignated for publication) (same). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jur isdiction. Desmarais also asks t hat we issue nunc pro tunc order s correcting alleged misinformation in presentenc e investigation s (PSI) c o nducted in each case. We lack jur isdiction
to do so. See Williams v. State , 603 S.W.3d 439, 442

– 43 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2020) (explaining that nunc pro tunc orders “ generally are reserved for actions taken outside a trial court’s plenary power, requiring a t rial court to rely on its inherent authority to make the record reflect what previously and actually occurred during its plenary power ” ) ; Ex parte Poe , 751 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (observing purpose of n unc pro tunc order is to correct cler i cal error in trial court judgment )

.3 __________________________________________ Edward Smith , Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana a nd Smith Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: December 23, 2022 Do Not Publish