Case Information
*1 IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15-00437-CR KAMERON PEARSON,
Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-1028-C1 MEMORANDUM OPINION
After pleading guilty under a plea bargain and waiving his right of appeal, Appellant Kameron Pearson filed a pro se “motion nunc pro tunc reformation of judgment to delete requirement to pay attorney’s fees.” The trial court denied the motion,
and Pearson has filed a pro se notice of appeal of that order.
We do not have appellate jurisdiction of the denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. Everett v. State , 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. dism’d). The appropriate remedy to obtain review of the denial of a nunc pro tunc motion is by a *2 petition for writ of mandamus. Ex parte Forooghi , 185 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Johnson, J., concurring statement); see also Ex parte Ybarra , 149 S.W.3d 147, 149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
REX D. DAVIS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed December 23, 2015
Do not publish
[CR25]
Pearson v. State Page 2