John Prince v. State, 01-17-00200-CR

In 1997 John Prince pleaded guilty to first-degree felony cocaine possession; trial court sentenced him to 20 years; judgment signed Oct. 22, 1997 (cause no. 750376). Prince did not appeal that conviction.
The 1997 judgment stated the sentence would run concurrent with a Louisiana cause and credited Prince with 191 days jail time.
On Feb. 21, 2017 Prince pro se filed a notice of appeal in this Court, purportedly appealing the district clerk’s memo response to his Motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment (the clerk’s memo was received Jan. 26, 2017).
The Court requested a signed certification of appellant’s right to appeal; the district clerk filed an affidavit stating no signed trial-court order/certification exists in the file.
The Court concluded a clerk’s memo is not a signed, appealable court order; the only signed order in the record is the 1997 judgment, which is untimely to appeal.
The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied/mooted Prince’s motions for a free record and appointed counsel.

Issue	Prince's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal may proceed without a signed certification of right to appeal in the record	Prince treated the district clerk’s unsigned certification/memo as a basis to appeal the denial of his nunc pro tunc motion	No signed trial-court certification exists; Rule 25.2(d) requires dismissal without it	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no valid certification was in the record and no signed order granting appeal rights existed
Whether a district clerk’s memo/docket entry is an appealable order	Prince appealed the clerk’s memo response as if it were an order denying his motion	A clerk’s memo is not a trial-court signed order and thus is not appealable	Clerk’s memo is not appealable; appeals must be from signed orders
Whether a nunc pro tunc-related order here is appealable/timely	Prince sought a nunc pro tunc remedy and attempted to appeal the clerk’s response	Even if a signed nunc pro tunc order is appealable, the only signed order in the record is the 1997 judgment, and any appeal from that is untimely	Appeal cannot proceed; the only signed judgment is untimely to appeal
Proper remedy for denial or non-response to a nunc pro tunc motion	Prince attempted direct appeal from clerk’s memo	State argued procedural requirements and appealability control; mandamus is the appropriate remedy for unruled nunc pro tunc motions	Court noted mandamus is the appropriate remedy (and Prince filed a separate mandamus petition)

Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (certification of right to appeal required in appellate record)
Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (signed nunc pro tunc judgment is appealable if appeal is timely)
Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (remedy for denial or failure to rule on nunc pro tunc motion may be mandamus)
State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (an order must be signed by the trial judge to be "entered by the court" and appealable)
Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appealability limited to statutes and orders specifically made appealable)