Ulric Bronshay Hicks v. State of Texas ( 2010 )

Opinion filed November 18, 2010

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                    Nos. 11-10-00313-CR & 11-10-00314-CR

                                                    __________

                             ULRIC BRONSHAY HICKS, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                      STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                   On Appeal from the 54th District Court

                                                        McLennan County, Texas

                                    Trial Court Cause Nos. 1996-691-C & 1997-519-C

                                            M E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N

            Ulric Bronshay Hicks was convicted in 1998 of aggravated robbery[1] and possession of a controlled substance.[2] On May 3, 2010, appellant filed in each case a pro se motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.  The trial court denied each motion on July 20, 2010, and appellant filed his pro se notices of appeal on September 7, 2010.

            On September 29, 2010, appellant was notified by writing in each case that it appeared the July 20 orders were not appealable and that, even if they were, it appeared the notices of appeal were untimely.  Appellant was directed to file a response in the cases showing grounds for continuing the appeals.

            In his responses to the September 29 letters, appellant states that he is appealing “the 6^th Amendment rights of his Conviction and Sentence.” He also states that he is raising “subject matter of law of Constitutional Civil Rights Challenge pursuant to the Articles 11.07 and Article 24.02 and Article 38.35(A)(1)(2)(3)(4)(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(5) ALE of Texas Code Criminal Procedure.”  Appellant addresses neither of the court’s concerns:  whether the July 20 orders are appealable or whether the notices of appeal are timely.

            The July 20, 2010 orders are not appealable.  Therefore, the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM

November 18, 2010                                                                                                               

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.

---

                [1]Cause No. 11-10-00313-CR.

                [2]Cause No. 11-10-00314-CR.