In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00005-CR ___________________________ IRA HENRY III, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 297th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 0644657A

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION In March 2021, appellant Ira Henry III filed documents in the trial court that seemed to seek a judgment nunc pro tunc “to have this judgment and sentence corrected, finding cleri[c]al mistakes in the judgment”; an “Appeal From Judgment”; and postconviction relief. The documents were filed in this court in January 2022.

We questioned our jurisdiction on three bases: (1) there was no appealable order based on a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc filed in the trial court; (2) we have no jurisdiction over postconviction relief; and (3) any attempted appeal from his 1998 conviction would be untimely in 2022 and, presumably, precluded by our prior review of his 1998 conviction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a); Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ater v. Eighth Ct. of App., 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); Henry v. State, No. 02-98-00297-CR (Tex. App.— Fort Worth Oct. 28, 1999, no pet.) (not designated for publication). We recognized, however, that we could have (1) mandamus jurisdiction to consider a complaint about the trial court’s failure to rule on a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or about the trial court’s denial of such a motion or (2) appellate jurisdiction to determine a timely appeal from a judgment nunc pro tunc. See Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148–49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We invited Henry to respond and warned that we could dismiss his appeal if he did not show grounds for our jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.

Henry responded that his documents had not been an appeal but had been attempts to move for a judgment nunc pro tunc in the trial court and to file a postconviction writ of habeas corpus. In short, Henry is not attempting to appeal anything to this court at this time. Thus, we dismiss his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). The clerk of this court shall forward Henry’s documents, which were filed in this court on January 6, 2022, to the trial court to be considered as a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and as an application for a postconviction writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07; Tex. R. App. P. 23.

/s/ Brian Walker Brian Walker Justice Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: March 24, 2022