Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00023-CR Rey Pak TREVINO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021CR7659 Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 30, 2025 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant, Rey Pak Trevino, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s May 20, 2024, order denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. This court, however, lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a request for judgment nunc pro tunc. See Thornton v. State, No. 05- 23-01316-CR, 2024 WL 1130506, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas March 15, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Desilets v. State, 495 S.W.3d 553, 554 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2016, no pet.); Hernandez v. State, No. 04-18-00274-CR, 2018 WL 3551176, at *1 (Tex. App.— San Antonio July 25, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The proper 04-25-00023-CR

procedure for challenging the denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is by writ of mandamus, not by appeal. See Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“If the trial court denies the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or fails to respond, relief may be sought by filing an application for writ of mandamus in a court of appeals.”).

Because we do not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, we ordered Trevino to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Trevino did not file a response to our order.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-