Court Opinion

ID: 9965681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 07:13:12.750249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:32.718682
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-24-00030-CR
                              NO. 09-24-00031-CR
                              NO. 09-24-00032-CR
                              __________________

                 CALVIN COLLIDGE FEARS JR., Appellant

                                          V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                 On Appeal from the 1A District Court
                         Tyler County, Texas
              Trial Cause Nos. 13,510, 13,569, and 13,570
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In 2019, the trial court sentenced Calvin Collidge Fears Jr. on three

convictions for aggravated robbery. In November 2023, Fears filed notices of appeal

from the trial court’s orders denying his motions requesting that the trial court issue

judgments nunc pro tunc in the three cases, Trial Cause Numbers 13,510, 13,569,

and 13,570.

                                          1
      On January 26, 2024, in each appeal, the Clerk of the Court notified the parties

that it appeared the orders from which Fears had filed his appeals were not final

judgments, nor were they appealable orders. In his responses to the Clerk’s notices,

Fears argues that while he was indicted for aggravated robbery, he should have been

convicted of robbery because he used a BB gun when committing the offenses and

the trial court did not make a deadly weapon finding on any of the judgments.

      As supporting authority, Fears cites Guthrie-Nail v. State, 506 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2015). In Guthrie-Nail, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a

defendant was entitled to notice and a hearing before the trial court’s signing of an

unfavorable judgment nunc pro tunc. Id. A nunc pro tunc judgment is an appealable

order under Article 44.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure if the notice of

appeal is filed within 30 days of the date on which the trial court signs the new

judgment. Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); see also

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02.

      That’s not what happened here. In these cases, the trial court denied Fears’

requests seeking judgments nunc pro tunc. Consequently, there are no new

judgments to appeal. We have addressed this same issue previously, explaining that

“[w]hile appeals courts have jurisdiction over appeals from a final judgment of

conviction, they do not have jurisdiction over appeals from orders denying requests

for the entry of judgments nunc pro tunc because no statute has been passed creating

                                         2
appellate jurisdiction over such appeals.” Desilets v. State, 495 S.W.3d 553, 554

(Tex. App.—Beaumont 2016, pet. ref’d).

      We conclude the Court does not have appellate jurisdiction of the orders that

Fears is seeking to appeal since all three orders simply denied his post-conviction

motions seeking judgments nunc pro tunc. Accordingly, Fears’ appeals are

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

      APPEALS DISMISSED.

                                                         PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 30, 2024
Opinion Delivered May 1, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

                                        3