Senrick Wilkerson v. State, 05-15-01473-CR

Senrick Wilkerson was previously convicted of sexual performance by a child and sexual assault of a child; those convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Wilkerson filed pro se motions seeking judgments nunc pro tunc and petitions for a court of inquiry in multiple trial-court causes (some indictments were dismissed on the State's motion).
He filed notices of appeal from the trial court’s alleged denials of those motions and petitions in six appellate cause numbers.
The Court of Appeals ordered clerk’s records; none contained written trial-court orders ruling on Wilkerson’s motions or petitions.
The Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because no appealable written orders or statutory right to appeal (for court-of-inquiry rulings) existed, so it dismissed the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over appeals from alleged denials of motions for judgment nunc pro tunc	Wilkerson sought reversal of trial convictions or relief via judgment nunc pro tunc	State maintained there was no appealable written order and nunc pro tunc is unavailable for judicial (non-clerical) error	No jurisdiction; motions sought relief for judicial error (not clerical) and denial of nunc pro tunc is not appealable
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over appeals from alleged denials of petitions for a court of inquiry	Wilkerson appealed denial of his chapter 52 petitions	State argued chapter 52 provides no statutory right to appeal such rulings	No jurisdiction; chapter 52 contains no statutory right to appeal denial of court-of-inquiry petitions
Whether absence of written trial-court orders affects appellate jurisdiction	Wilkerson relied on his notices of appeal despite no written orders in clerk’s record	State pointed to lack of written rulings in the clerk’s records	No jurisdiction; without written appealable orders the court cannot hear the appeals
Whether appellate court may act on pro se filings lacking statutory basis	Wilkerson’s pro se filings attempted to invoke appellate review	State argued statutory requirements for appeal not met	Court cannot act; appeal rights are statutory and were not invoked here

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (jurisdiction concerns power to hear case)
Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (nunc pro tunc not available for judicial error)
Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (appeal must be authorized by law)
McKinney v. State, 207 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (right to appeal is statutory)
Griffin v. State, 145 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (appeal rights are created by statute)
Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. App.––Dallas 1998) (appeals lie only after conviction or entry of appealable order)
Nikrasch v. State, 698 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. App.––Dallas 1985) (absence of written orders deprives appellate jurisdiction)
In re Court of Inquiry, 148 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. App.––El Paso 2004) (no appeal from denial of court of inquiry)