Court Opinion

ID: 9409153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-15 19:10:01.93923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.143017
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00096-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

FRANCISCO J. SOLIS
A/K/A FRANKIE SOLIS,                                                    Appellant,

                                           v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                      Appellee.

                   On appeal from the 138th District Court
                        of Cameron County, Texas.

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

      Appellant Francisco J. Solis a/k/a Frankie Solis, proceeding pro se, attempts to

appeal from the alleged denial of a motion to correct his sentence of imprisonment. As

discussed below, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
       On February 9, 2023, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Appellant alleged

that this Court possessed appellate jurisdiction to review “clear error” regarding the illegal

stacking” of two criminal sentences. On March 6, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified

appellant that it appeared that there was no final, appealable order, advised appellant to

correct this defect, if possible, and informed appellant that the appeal would be subject to

dismissal if the defect was not corrected. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1.

       Appellant subsequently filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the

Clerk’s directive and concomitantly filed a motion seeking the appointment of an attorney

to represent him on appeal. On April 13, 2023, this Court granted appellant’s motion for

extension of time, abated the appeal, and remanded the case to the trial court to

determine if appellant was entitled to court-appointed counsel.

       Upon remand, the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant in this

appeal. Accordingly, we reinstated the appeal and advised appellant’s appointed counsel

that there did not appear to be a final, appealable order in the case. See id. On July 4,

2023, appointed counsel advised the Court that the record fails to contain any ruling on

appellant’s motion to correct his sentence, and even if there were, such an order would

not support appellate jurisdiction. See Desilets v. State, 495 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont 2016, no pet.) (“While 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 appellate jurisdiction over such appeals.”) (collecting cases).

                                              2
       The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal, appointed

counsel’s response to the Clerk’s directives, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that

we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.

                                                               GINA M. BENAVIDES
                                                               Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
13th day of July, 2023.

                                             3