COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-15-00010-CR NO. 02-15-00011-CR NO. 02-15-00012-CR

MARK THOMAS APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NOS. F-2010-2704-E, F-2010-2705-E, F-2010-2706-E ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------- Appellant Mark Thomas pled guilty to forgery in three cases on June 30, 2011, in exchange for concurrent sentences of five years’ confinement in each case. He filed his notices of appeal from the trial court’s judgments of conviction on December 31, 2014.

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

On January 20, 2015, we notified appellant that his notices of appeal appeared to be untimely filed and that the trial court’s certification of his right to appeal in each case states that it was a plea-bargain case and that appellant had no right of appeal and had waived the right of appeal. We informed appellant that his appeals would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeals filed with this court, on or before February 4, 2015, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeals. See Tex. R. App. p. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 26.2(a), 44.3. Appellant filed a response in each case, but his responses do not show grounds for continuing the appeals.2 Therefore, we dismiss the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 26.2(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth BONNIE SUDDERTH JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: March 5, 2015 The trial court issued judgments nunc pro tunc on January 20, 2015, to correct the cause numbers in the judgments from F-2011-2704-E, F-2011-2705- E, and F-2011-2706-E to F-2010-2704-E, F-2010-2705-E, and F-2010-2706-E but apparently made no other corrections, and appellant does not complain of these corrections in his responses. Cf. Loftin v. State, No. 02-11-00366-CR, 2012 WL 5512391, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 15, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (discussing intermediate appellate court’s lack of authority to review an underlying conviction or ancillary matters in an appeal from a judgment nunc pro tunc).