Senrick Wilkerson was convicted of sexual performance by a child and sexual assault of a child. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, as were the appeals from the denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing related to the convictions. Wilkerson v. State , Nos. 05-11-00061–00062-CR, 2012 WL 2877623 (Tex. App.––Dallas July 16, 2012, pet. ref’d) (convictions); Wilkerson v. State , Nos. 05-14-00007–00008-CR, 2015 WL 139387 2015 WL 139387 (Tex. App.––Dallas Jan. 12, 2015, no pet.) (DNA). The Court now has before it appellant’s “motion for appeal” to which is attached a copy of a “motion to enter nunc pro tunc order” to correct inaccuracies in the judgments. Appellant asserts he filed the motion on September 21, 2015. Appellant complains in the letter accompanying his notice of appeal that the trial court does not respond to the motions he files.

We note that the notice of appeal and the motion for nunc pro tunc judgment do not contain the file-stamp of the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office. We received correspondence from the Dallas County District Clerk stating that appellant did not file the documents with that office. If a notice of appeal is filed with this Court, the date on which it is received will be recorded and the notice will be sent to the trial court clerk. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(c)(1). Rule 25.2(c)(1), however, does not apply to appellant’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. That motion must be filed with the trial court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 23.1. Appellant may not file a motion to correct the trial court’s judgment in this Court, nor may he use this Court as an alternative filing office for documents directed to the trial court.

Because appellant’s notice of appeal attacks no judgment or order over which we have jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeals.

/Carolyn Wright/ Do Not Publish CAROLYN WRIGHT T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 CHIEF JUSTICE 151202F.U05