### CERTIFIED NUMBER 

### 1tJI$" /Gd-0 OOtJO cj£-f/0 

### 91/b

IN THE COURT OF TEXAS, OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AT AUSTIN TEXAS.
Dennis L. Giddings (Relator) Vs. § § § Kendall County Judge Presiding; § § § § § § County District Clerk (In the Offical Capacity) [Respondent]



### MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS IN The 216th Judicial District Court of**·K~ndall** County, Texas



### TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TEXAS

### ~b®M~©()S~a,**C~erk** Now Comes, Dennis Lee Giddings. Relator, Complaining of Kendall County and Pursuant to Rule 211 of the rules of Appellate Procedure in Criminal Cases, Moves this Court to Grant Applicant Leave to File this Application for Writ of Mandamus Tendered Contemporaneously with this Motion. Applicant Prays that the motion be Granted. The said Application for Mandamus be filed and Set down for a Hearing,That Relief Requested be Granted and for other relief, General and Special Including a Stay of the Proceedings Below. Until the Matters Complained of in Said Application are Cured.



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Hereby Certify that a Copy of the Above Motion for Leave to File Application 

### for Mandamus was Mailed to the Court of**Crimin~~ls** 

### of Texas, P.O.Box 12308 Capitol Station. Austin,Texas 78711. On This,

### ~Day of September,2015.NUMBER



# ----------------------- Supplied by Court
IN TilE Q)URT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

Dennis L.Giddings [Relator] Vs. Kendall County Judge Presiding; County District Clerk (In the Offical Capacity) § § § § §

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS In The 216th Judicial District Court of Kendall County, Texas

TO TilE HONORABLE Q)URT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:
Now Comes,Dennis Lee Giddings,Applicant and Ask this Court to Issue A Writ of Mandamus to; District Court of Kendall County,Tx To Require the respondent Describe Relief requested and in Support of this Application would show the Court the Following;

I Applicant was tried for the Offence of Aggravative Assault. In a Case styled The State of Texas Vs. Dennis Lee Giddings, 

### Number 4739. In the Judical District Court of the 216th, Kendall County Texas. The Indictment was Returned on the 7th day of June,2008. A Jury Ended in Hung Jury. Applicant was Mis-Guided by Councel to Take a Plea of :(20) Years. The State Waived the Deadly weapon, Attached is Exhibit (A). Final Judgement and sentence Dated February/7/2008. Showing;' .NO DFADLY WEAPON FINDING.**~** Once Relator Arrived to the Texas department of Criminal Justice, He was Class- -ified with a Deadly weapon Finding. See Exhibit ( ).·On day of

______ __

_______. State of Texas. The Board of Pardons and paroles Requested for an Indictment in Cause Number #4739. which Reads; Defendant did then and There use and exhibit A Deadly Weapon During the Commission of Said Assault to wit.A Knife Which in the Manner of it's Use and intended Use was then and there Capable of Causing serious Bodily Injury or Death. On July/10/2015. A Public request was Conducted to Confirm the Fact, The Indictment
CERIEFIED Tta; N.M3ER 

### #**·fc;/~** 

### /S;2o**~oo ;t61_~·-9flb**  page 1Does Exzists In Relator File; 

### SHOWING A DEADLY WEAPON FINDING. (1. On 5/21/2015 Motion for NUNC- Pro-Tunc ODder was filed in the 216th Judicial District of Kendall County Texas. The Court Stamped and Filed.the,NUNC-Pro Tunc Order But Failed to Rule on the NUNC- Pro-TUnc ODder. Attached is the Original NUNC-Pro-Tunc Order as Exhibit 

## Cf3 ) . (2. Written Objections,Failure to rule on NUNC-Pro-Tunc ODder was Filed,Stamped
on July/24/2015 at 2:10PM. The Court Failed to Rule on Original NUNC-Pro-TUnc and Failed to Rule on Written Objections. See Exhibit**(~).** (3. A Third Motion for NUNC-Pro-Tunc "Amended Pen-Pac was Filed,Stamped Aug/18/15 9:01 AM. The Court has NOT RULED on None of the Listed Pleadings. See Exhibit 

# <D) Ammended NUNC-Pro-Tunc.**~·~·:** On June/15/2015 Wallace T. Ferguson, Responded to Relator Letter,Written

to Attorney. Attached is Exhibit**(~).** 1 do not recall, If we ever knew the Exact reason for the Hung Jury. I suppose that it was Because, All Twelve Jurors could not AGREE to a [Guilty] or[NOf Guilty] Verdict. Also I Cannot Explain why you may be Classified with a Deadly Weapon Finding.Having Reviewed your Final Judgement of Conviction Dated, February/7/2008. This Document Clearly States thatt[There was (Nar) a Deadly Weapon finding. No Further Inquire was Conducted Into this Matter.**~·:** A Nunc-Pro-Tunc Judgement is An Appealable Order, "The Purpose of Nunc-Pro-Tunc Judgement is to Provide a Method for Trial Courts to Correct the Record,when There is a Discrepency. 

# * Relator has Requested the error be Corrected,[There is NO Deadly Weapon]. 

# * Subsequently The Court has refused to rule on Original NUNC-Pro-TUnc/Written Objections/Amended, NUNC-Pro-Tunc.

II**~UFSf** FOR RELIEF
Relator request in this Application that this Court Direct Respondent to Correct ERROR and RULE on Original Nunc-Pro-Tunc Order and Written Objections and Amended Nunc-Pro_:Tunc Pen-Pac. To Prepair, Written Facts and Conclusions of Law. To Provide Relator a Copy of such Findings. Rather The Nunc-Pro-Tunc Orders
are [Granted ] or [Denied] As Required by Law. There should be a ruling and as to the reason,Why the Nunc-Pro-Tunc Maybe Denied, The Right to Appeal is a Giving,on the Merits of each, Filing of Relators.

page 2-

- . At This Time Relator Provides 

### NOTICE OF APPEAL, So as Not to Waive appellate Rights Relator Cannot Appeal Until a Denial is Provided,or In the Other Hand, If The Court Grants the Nunc-Pro-Tunc Order. There is No Need for Appeal.

III 

### JURISDICITON
This Court has Jurisdiction to Consider this Application Pursuant to 

### Art.S.S of the Texas Constitution and Artical 4.04 of the Code of criminal Procedure. See 

### Pacilla V. t-t.Daniel 122 S.W..3d 

### 805,807(Tex.Crim.App.2003) : Holmes V. Denson 671 S.W.2d 896.(Tex.Crim.App.June.27.1984).

IV


### AU1HORITIES AND ARGUMENT

In Writ of Mandamus have Held that A Trial Court has a Ministerial duty to [Timely] Rule on A Motion, Nunc-Pro-Tunc Order/ Written Objections/Amended Nunc-Pro-Tunc Order Pen-Pac. See 

### In Re Taylor 39 S.W..3d 

### 406,414 (Tex.App-Waco 2001). and In 

### Re Salazar 134 S.W..3d 

### 357,358(TX.App-Waco 2003). The Respondent in there Capacity as District Clerk of Kendall County Texas. Has a Ministerial Duty to receive and File All Papers in a Criminal Proceeding and Perform All Other Dutys Imposed on the clerk by Law. Pursuant to TCCP.Art.2.21 None of the Motions for Nunc-Pro-Tunc were set for Dockett Call, Appearing to be only Stamped and Not Placed for Review. To Date the Realator has received NO Responce from Respondent. Mandamus is Available to Compel Action on the part of Those Charged with a Positive Duties by Virtue of Their official Position. 

### Hogan V.TUrland 428 S.W..3d 

### 316(1968). There are Generally Three Requisites for a Writ of Mandamus; A Legal Duty to Per- -form, A non-Discretionary Act, A demand for Performance and a refusal to Perform. See 

### Bantuelle V.Renf:foe,;:620. S.W.2d 635(Tex.App.-Dallas 1981) .Writ REF .D N .R.E. The Court of Criminal Appeals Stated; In 

### Texas Board of Pardons and 

### Paroles V. Miller 590 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). Entitlement to a Writ of Mandamus, Must be Shown to be Clear and Indisputable

..Unequivocal•.Abundantly Clear. 

### Knowles V. Scofield 598. S.W.2d 854,860(Tex.Crim.App.1980).

page 3Relator Shows that the Act Sought to be Compelled is Strictly Ministerisl in Nature and there is No Adequate Remedy at Law to Redress the Alleged Harm. See Aranda V. Dist.Clerk. 207 S.W.3d 785,786(Tex.Crim.App.2006). (per Curiam) (Orig.Proceedings). "In Proper Case's, Mandamus May issue to Compel a Trial Court to Act" In RE Blakeney 254 S.W.3d 569,661(Tex.App.Texarkana 2008).(0rig.Proceedings} SEE Also Eli Lily 

### &Co. Marshall 829 S.W.2d 157. 1581(Tex.1992).(Per CUriam) (Orig. Proceedings) (Trial Court Abuses Discretion).By Refusing to Conduct Hearing and Render Decission on Motion Nunc-Pro-Tunc/Written Objections/Amended Nunc- -Pro-Tunc Pen-pac. Ori.les V.Schuble 788 S.W.2d 205,207(Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist] 1990).(Orig. Proceedings). [Mandamus Appropriate Remedy to Require Trial Court to Hold Hearing and Exercise Discretion]. Trial Courts are Not Required to Consider or Rule on a Motion unless the Motion is called to the Courts Attention. Blakeney 254 S.W.3d at 662 Relator called Failure delay to Respond to the 216th Judicial District, Kendall County, Texas. "Attention by Fileing Written Objections'.' (1. Preservation of Error TX. R.App.33.1(2)(B) the Court:Has Refused to Rule
on the Request Nunc-Pro-Tunc. that was filed on 5/21/2015. SEE Zillenger V. State 

### 55i S.W.2d. 515,517(Tex.Crim.App.1997).0bjections are listed as Exhibit({2) that is Stamped July/24/2015. as Required by the Texas Rule of Appellate Pro- -cedure 52.3(K)(1)(A). ]pe Objections are a Copy of the one filed in the Trial Court.See Brownlee V. Brownlee 665 S.W.2d 111J:Lt12(Tex.1984). The Trial Court has Declined to Rule Blakeney 254. S.W.3d at 661. The Right to Mandamus has been Met.See TEX.R.App. P.33.1(A) 52.3(K)(1)(A) 52.7(A)(1).PLEASE 

### VIEW EXHIBIT((!}**W~itten** Objections. The Original Nunc-Pro-Tunc was Correct, The Violation of SEE theCIH-B 3671 Sheffield Law as Exhibit**(~).** When TDCJ Parole Board Requested The Indictment Showing

... [A Deadly Weapon] at that time and the Pen-Pac came into Play,Creating a Different Form of Classi- -fication. Usually When a Plea is Conducted the Prosecuter or Attorney,Do Not Follow Thru with the reason a Plea was Conducted. Leaving Relator to be Classi -fied with a Deadly weapon. When Relator Realized the trail Court was Not Responding to Orignal Nunc-Pro

### Ttmc. The Motion for Nunc-Pro-Tunc Order,"Amending Pen-Pac in Exhibit 

## CD) that is Stamped and Filed, According to TEX.R.App.P.52.3 (K)(1)(A). The Amended Nunc-Pro-Tunc was Written Because, Pursuant to Statement regaurding the Nature and Seriousness of the Offence under Tex.Code.of Criminal procedure 42.09 Art 8. The Purpose of the Deadly.weapon Finding is to Assist in Calculating a Prisoners

page 4Parole Eligibility Date. Kinkaid V.State 184 S.W.3d 929,930(Tex.App.-Waco 2006). In This Case Compare Exhibit (,t:l). Judgement of Sentence, [NO DEADLY WEAPON FINDING] CF. Exhibit ( ). Of TDCJ/Parole requesting Indictment that Shows a Deadly Weapon Finding as Mentioned in Exhibit (lJ).Amended Pen-Pac, For Nunc-Pro-Tunc, Part II Shows; TDCJ Requested' the Indictment, Which Reads a Deadly Weapon Finding,That is Creating Serious Problems in Classification and Parole. A Nunc-Pro-Tunc is designed to Fix Problems like this.


## v. The State of Texas can Amend a Pen-Pac with the Following Under the Above Cause Number 4739, Dennis Lee Giddings was Convicted of Aggravated Assault [NO DEADLY WEAPON]. In Nunc-Pro-Tunc should Read this Statement is to Clarify the Nature of the Offence for which Mr.Giddings was Convicted. The Original Pen-Pac Produced by the County Contains the Offence Report Generated by Local Law Enforcement. That Report Contains Allegations of a Violant Nature Including the Use of a Knife. The State Waived the Deadly Weapon. A Simple Statement from the State of Texas to The Classification Board at TDCJ, Clarifing that the Indictment of Deadly Weapon [is Incorrect]. This Error Violates Art.42.09 of the Seriousness of the Offence. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. (Correcting and Amending the Pen-Pac would Fix the Issue. The Purpose of Nunc-Pro-Tunc is to Correct Error of this Nature. See Collins V. State 240.S.W.3d 925,928(Tex.Crnn.App.2007). Please Correct this and Notify State Ready at: TDCJ Records Department. P.O.Box 99 Huntsville,Texas 77342. Mandamus relief shoul 

### be Granted. Relator has Demonstrated that (1) The Act Sought to 

### be Compelled is Purely minsterial and (2) The relator has No Other Adequate Legal Remedy. Court of Criminal Appeals Defined the Ministerial Act Requirement to be one in which the relator"Has a Clear and Disputable Right to the Relief Sought", and the Merits of it's Legal Position are Beyond Dispute. See Neveu V.Culver 105 S.W.3d 641,642(Tex.Crnn.App.2003)(Citing State EX.REL Rosenthal V.Poe 98 S.W.3d 194.198(Tex.Crnn.App.2003). Also State Ex.Cel. Lykos V.Fine 330.S.W.3d 904,907(Tex.Crnn.App.2011). All Requirements have been Met Under Tex.R.App.P.52.3(K)(1)(A). In Exhibits 

# cs), (e), c D). The Court Should Correct There own Error or this Could Be a Breach of Contract
on the Plea. Rather the Trial Court Agrees with the**Nunc~Pro~Tunc** Orders and Amended Nunc-Pro-Tunc. Under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure Trap 23.1 Blanton V.State 369.S.W.3d Page 5894,897(Tex.Cri.m.App.2012)[N]nnc-Pro-Tnnc Judgements are... Appealable Orders. [Under 

### C.C.P 

### Art 44.02.]. The Trial Court has to Rule on the Nunc-Pro-Tunc. The Original Fileing on First Nunc-Pro-Tunc is Over 102 Day's old. Not Placed on Dockett Call. Before a Appeal could 

### be Conducted,A Ruleing has to be done.


### VI. CDNCUJS[QN (1. Relator has No Other Legal Remedy Available to Him other Than this Application for Mandamus. (2. This Action Sought is Under the Facts of This Case,In Essence, A Mere Ministrial Act, Which Respondent has a Legal Duty to Perform. (3. Relator has Properly Requested respondent to Perform which Respondent has Refused to Answer Nunc-Pro-Tunes-and Objections,also the Amended Nunc-Pro-Tunc Order.**~·:-;•,** Exhibits Attached are OrignaLCopy's Stamped by the Trial Court.**~·:-;•:** Attached is Affidavit of wittness to Fact.
Wherefore, Premises Considered, Relator Prays that this Application be Granted and that Respondent be ordered Continue with Relief requested.

page 6State of Texas County of DeWitt § § AFFIDAVIT § BY: Dennis Lee Giddings, Pro-Se §
Before Me The undersigned Authority on this Date Personally Appeared Applicant who upon bein Duly Sworn did Depose and State; 

### My Name is, Dennis Lee Giddings [Relator] and Mother is [Applicant] in the Above Cause. I Have read the above Application for Mandamus and State that the Factual Allegations made Therein are True and Correct.· Further My Mother Patricia Giddings has Typed and Certified this Writ of Mandamus

. Mailed to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

TEX.CIV.PRAC & REM.OODE.ANN.§ 132.001(A) (WEST. SUPP.2014).
Subscribed and Sworn to Before Me, The Undersigned Authority, by Said Applicant and Mother on this, 

# 9- Day of 

## Se..pr , 2015. to Certify Which Witness 

### My I Hand and Seal of Office. RESPECTFULLY

# -~)?;~ Mother' Applicant

### ~~~~~~~~~~~~ N6tary Public in and For**$-f.~~?'~~~~,,_** THERESA PECK**!~::::A::::01** Notary Public, State of Texas**~ ~** **;_.:;.:~)~j** My Commission Expires '\/

_**~ -,~t.:?,\:i~**  ....**~** September 18, 2018 

## ·H**~ lb~**  ,County, Texas.**\l;;;;;;;~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiji;;iliiiiiiii;;;;;ii--:.l** . - \ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Patricia Giddings, Hereby Certify that a Copy of the Above Application For Mandamus was Certified. 

### 70IS**1~;10** 0000 

### :12''/tJ 9?/h. to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas at; P.O.Box 12308 Capitol Station, Austin,Texas 78711 on this**Q~y** of 2015.**gQ~** 

### My Son Dennis L.Giddings. Respectfully.

___________________________________

### -:r .. -

THE STATE OF TEXAS
vs. DENNIS LES GIDDINGS
Jqa Pre&i.d:iag: S"l'EPBEN B. ABLES**~** No. 4739 §**~or** State: E. BRUCE CORRY/LUCY RILKB Of£ense Corlviot:ecl of: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT Date Oft'ease**~tted.:** 06/30/07 Dagzee:**s~ ~**  1Dat:z:i1lllellt: Indictment •. IN TBE DlS'llUC'.l" COORT**~16TB-JODICXAL** DISTRICT**Da~** of**~~=** 02/07/08 Att:o=ay for Def&lldaDt: WAJ,LAQ; FERGUSON



### .r.c. Secticm; 22.02
Pl.ea: GW.l.ty

_

'l'aals of Plea Bargain: Twenty P1ea to Bnbn Jement:: NOlle {20) years confinement TDCJ-ID; $-0- Fi.n«:t 

### n nclinga 011 

### u&e FiJldinga em Bnban• •ii:: N/A Of Deadly 1f I poD: None Data Selltance hlpoaed: 02/01/08 Coart COsts:**~00.** C•O Pani ehfii9i•t aad Pl.aaa o:E Coa:£1.........,t; Twenty (20) Years COD.fi.nement in the Texu Depart:ment of Crindnal-J\lati.ce Institutional OiViaion Ja:l.l. !rUle Czad:Ued.: See Below RestU:ut:ioD t:o he pUcl to: Bema: N/A Addl:ess: DOB: 05/17/67

Fingerprint from Rl:GBT TBOMB of**Oef~t:** 881: 45D-29-8239 Total Alllolm'l: of Rastit:ut:LoD.: 

### s -oThis day this cause was called..

### ~fo;;

# ... trial, and the State appeared .by her District ·Attomey, and the Defendant, DENNIS LEE GIDDINGS bavinq b!eD duly arraigned, appeared in person, ill open court, his counsel al.ao being pre.e1ent, and .both parties flDilounced ready for trial: and it appearing to the Court that the Defelidant, his COUDSeJ., and the State's attomey have agreed in writing in open court to waive a jury in -the trial. of tbi.s cause and to auhmit this cause to the Court; and the Court having consented to the waiver of a jury herein, the indictment was read, and the Defendant entered his plea of guilty thereto, and thereupon the said Defendant vas aclmOni.shed by the Court of the consequences of said plea,. and the sai.d Defendant persisted iii the detendant's plea;. anci it plainly appeari.nq to the Court that the Defendant i.s sane and that the defendant is un.t.n.fl.uenced i.n mat1nq· said plea ·by any consideration of fear, or by any persuasion, or delusive hope of pard.oD. prgmpting**~** defendant to co.nfess the defendant's guilt, the sp.id plea is. by the Court received an.d here now entered of reCO%d up0.n the Jllimltes of t.be

.court as the pl.ea herein of said Def-endant. ·



### ____**~YA** 

### 'fl/CJ'I·.! · Ana 1.1: appearing to t:!le Court that the**Det:enc~ant,** cr.et:enctaDt• s c:cnJruse.L, ana me State's attorney have agreed in vri tin9'**~**·open court to wai:ve a ju:ry m:Jd to submlt the _assea:mamt of Defendant'S**puni:8~t.** to the Court: 

### and the Court**--ha~q** · consented t:o the waiver of a**j~** herein, and a:fter having heard all. tlle evidence**submitted_f~r** the State and 

# the Defendant and argument of counael the Court is of the opin.ion and so :finds that the sai.d Defendant'a puni:shment should be ·by c:onf.ineaumt in the Texas Depart:nlent of C:.riminal .JUatic:e InatltutionaJ. D1v:1.s1on for a texm of twenty**(2~).)** years, and .by the payment of a f:iD.e of 

### $-o-.
IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED AND ADJUDGED by the Court that the Defendant is gu:U:ty of the. offense of AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, committed on the· 30aa day of June, 2001, as found by the Court and that the Defendant .be punished as found by thf! Court, that is by confinement :in the Texas Depa.rbnent of Criminal JUsUce .Institutional. Division for a tam. of twenty (20) years and that the State of**'l'~s** do have and recover Of the aa.i.d Defendant the amount of such fine, and all. costa ill this prosecution, for wMdl execution lllilY issue; and that the said. Defendant be remanded to jail to await the further orders of the CoUrt herein.**~s** day this cause**.be~g** again**cal~ed,** the State appeared by her District Attorney. and the De£endaAt wae brought into open court :in person, in c:ba:cge o:t the Sheriff, defendant's coun.se1 al.so bei.ng present, for the pw:pose of ha.vi.nq sentence of the law pronounceti in accordance with the judgJiierit herein rendered and entered against the said Defendant. And thereupon the Defendant**t~aa** asked by the Court whether the defendant bad anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced against the defendant, and the Defendant answered nothing in bar thereof. Whereupon the- Court proceeded, in the presence of the said Defendant, to pronounce sentence against the defendant

.as fo11ows: It is ORDERED by the Court the Defendant, DENNIS LEE GIDDINGS, who bas been adjudged to be gu:ilty of the offense of AGGRAVATED ASSAULT committed on the 30u day .of June, 2007, be, and is hereby sentenced to confinement in the Texas Department of Cr1m1nal Justice Institutional Division for a _te.cn of twenty (20) years, and by the payment of a fine in the amount of s-o-, and that the state of reaas do**ba~** and recover of said Defendant all costs of thi.s prosec:ation, for whi.ch exe«::ution may issue aqainSt the property of said Defendant, and that the Defendant be. delivered by the Sher:iff of this County, or authorized agent of the State of Texas, to the Director of the Texas Departmellt of Crim:inal Justice Institutional Di·u·ision, or other person legally authorized to receive such c::onvic:ts, and the said Defendant shaU be confined 1.n the**mann~r an~**  for the period aforesaid. It :is further OBDERED that the Defendant make restitution to_,_Ken<lall Co'unty, reus, for court; appointed attorney fees in the amount of 

### s1fl·]:>

...· . It is further ORDERED by the Court that the defendant is hereby 9iven jail credit as follows: 

## 7/;;../07-

# pr~+ And the said Defendant is hereby remanded to jail. until the ciirectioJJS of thi.s sentence can be obeyed.. SIGNED this the Jtb. day of February,

# ~rLJ copies

# j:**~-.** Bruce CUrry · De:fense Counsel.**~eriffis Offi~**  S • ABLES · Judge PresidingDennisLee Giddings
vs. State ofTexas Cause Number4739


### Inthe 

### 216th Judicial 

### District of Kendall County, Texas 

## Nunc Pro Tunc Orderfor Honorable Judge

To the Honorable Judge ofsaidcourt; Now comesDennisLee Giddings appearingpro-se, britiging to the**a~ntion** ofthe trial courtthatthejudgement 

### inthe above numbered cause contains an errorin the · court. There is no finding ofa deadly weapon perthe court andthe defendantwill showthe following errors; 1. The trial court can correct·a clerical error in thejudgementatany time even 

### after itloses plenary poweroverthejudgement. 2. A Clerical Erroris a "Discrepancy" between entry ofajudgementin the officialrecord andjudgementas actually rendered. See: universe underwrites Ins. co. v. ferguson 471 3.w2d 26, 28 29-30, TXI97J. 3. OnFeb.**5~** 2008 ajurytrial was conductedthatended 

### in a hungjury. Attorney office extended a plea bargain for 20 

### years confmementinTI)CJ**-i~** zero fine and contained no finding ofdeadly weapon. SeeExhibit

# .ILl- 

# e Under this plea, the state, afterhungjury, entered the plea as waiver ofthe deadly weapon finding. It is common.for a pleato 

### be accepted andthepaper worknot corrected to showno deadly weapon finding was·agreed upo.n. Because ofthis, it is now creating further injury to the defendantbyviolating the agreedplea ofno deadly weapon finding**furth~r** errors do exist. 

### In Code ofCriminal Procedure

### 42.09 penpacket·sent to TDCJthat is 

### in error does not show

### TDCJ there is No deadly weaponfinding, that is causinginjury affecting goodtime anddassification andParole. There are many factors that could be stated onthe face ofthisplea 

### that has a clerical error. 

### The plea reads No deadly weapon finding. The dOcuments sentto TDCJ show an offense for which thejudgementcontains an affirmative finding causing sect (3-G) to·appear

### with a deadly weapon finding.

## •· .:



### >In BLANTON

### V. STAlE 369 s.w.3d 894, 897-98 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012). 

### The purpose ofa Nunc ProTunc Judgement is to

### provide a method for trial courts to 

### correct the record when there is discrepancy betweenthejudgmentthat

## was actually rendered, butthatfor some reason was not properly entered into the record at 

### tt,Je time of judgement. 

### In this cause #4739

### the tier 

### offact 

### made was "No finding

. ofdeadly weapon." Other cases like ExpartePOE 751 s.w.2d 873 {TX. CrimApp.

1988) andExparte

### Dopps, 723 s.

### w. 2d 669 (TX CrimApp. 1986)

### were denied because a. 

### Nunc 

## Pro Tunc could not correct ajudicial error. In

### casenumber 4739

### is a clerical error. Inthis 

### case 4739

### the trier 

### offaci made No 

### affirmative finding oruse of

- deadly weapon, compare Crumptom 

### v. State 301 s.w. 3d663 (TX. Crim. App. 2010) 

### where the trier offact 

### made an a:ffinnative finding ofthe use of deadly weapon which made a Nunc proTunc to 

### have no standing. Inthis case 

### there is no deadly weapon finding. The trier offact is presented**wi~**

### and responds in

### the affirmative to a special issue regardingthe defendants use ofexhibition ofa deadly weapon or firearm 

### during the commission ofthe offense. Notice requirement ofthe due process clause ofboth

### the 5th and 14th

### Amendments ofthe US 

### Constitution must be 

### examined in that light. 

### Polkv. state 693 s.

### w. 2d. 391 (TX Crim.App. 1985). 

### The trier offact states in 

### this case 4739

### waiver ofdeadly weapon, No finding 

### of deadly weapon. 

### Itis the courts duty to 

### insure all 

### functions with 

### paperwork is 

### correct. Using Lexis TX Code Crim. 

### Proc. art

### 42.09 (2013) sec. 8 (a) (3) 

### a. written report that states the nature and the seriousness ofeach offense andthat 

### st-ates the citation to 

### the provision orprovisions ofthe penal code orotherlawunder which the defendant was convicted.· ''Because the indictment reads to 

### wit a knife" once the state sent the paperworkby 

### TX Code ofCriminal 

### Proc. 42.09 

### without correcting the fact there is no 

### deadly weapon 

### finding which was conducted after the hungjury, 

### causes serious clerical error. Due to this, the clerical error is 

### seen when classification orparole orthe penpacket is viewed, it is 

### eritei-ed as 

### deadly weapon, the offense reports are also effecting this, creating a problem. Itis obviouS thatthe plea ofNo

### deadly weapon

# wentno further than the court. Had the defendantknown the**eff~** 

### ofthis, he could have

. ' 

### followed thru 

### to insure**tha~ ~.·Nunc**  

### Pro Tunc order

# was filed and prepared to

. . . •- .• .:.• 

### correct what 

### is 

### today affecting whatthe District

### Attorney offered. The waiver of

# ~i..,



### ...**~·** 

# ...

deadly weapon, is supposedtobe corrected on 

### all documents, notjustvoiced 

### in court. A lot oftimes DistrictAttorneys will waive enhancements on a habitual 

### if the plea is accepted or like 

### in this case taking a pleato waive the deadly weapon, 

### find out laterthis does notplace every one onthe same page,just like this case. There 

### is no weapon 

### finding , why 

### is defendant doing a sentence that 

### islike a weaponcrime

..... The only solution wouldbe toprepare a Nunc 

### Pro Tun1:; order correcting the fact case number

### 4739 is not

### an aggravative crime ora plea 

### with a deadly weapon ora 3G crime. Ms Lucy Wilke,Assistant DistrictAttorney for the 216thJudicial District Attorneys office containedNo finding ofdeadly weapon. Defendant

### is not attackingthe sentence, onlyrequestingthe courtto**corr~** their own error by·filing
a Nunc ProTunc**s~g** that this crimedoes nothave a deadly weapon fiiltding. Thatthe state waived

### this issue beingsthepen-packet

### is incorrectwith the · indictment showingdeadly weapon creating a 

### 30crime that is not true.· Wherefore premises considered, defendantprays thatthe courtfiles a NuncPro Tuiic ordercorrecting all papers that show use oforbarring deadly weapon finding for cause

### # 

### 4739 to remove 

### this from the penpacket, thejudgementpapers sentto 

### TDCJ and 

### all clerical errors.

Certificate ofService 

### I DennisLee Giddings Certify this Nunc Pro Tunc Motion with order

### was band

. delivered to the District Clerk ofCourt**~~t ~o** **Av~.** Suite 122, Boerne,

TX. onthis 21 Day ofMay 2015

.......

## x~ · .
· · ORDER Upon Viewing ofNunc ProTunc order this honorable courtfinds there is good cause to correct deadly weapon finding 

### and penpal thathas indictmtmt y weaponfinding and any other documents that

### are out oforderto

way ofNtmc Pro Tunc order. 

### It istherefore ordered to send notice fications ofthe Nunc Pro Tunc Orderto correctthe error.**'t!~~,~~Day** of of2015 ThisNunc Pro

### Tunc, is grallted.

HonorableJudge ofsaid Court**.~·**



### Dennis Lee Giddings
vs. State ofTexas Cause Number4739 In

### the 216th Judicial District Kendall County,**Tex~**


### Motion Written Objections Failure to Rule on Nunc pro tunc Order c::

### m·x~ -- -<· rraz .·U1 · . - :z

### ~~ 

### ·2;

. .,

.**r;-~.** ,..... 0 .'[/')

.. -... - m - -no · ·- -, Cj\ OZ;

-**~** 

## r c:::e:. -t
-**::z:_~.** ... ., 

# m -<**;;:~:** :X

.



### .**--;;;~** 

### -N. 0 To the Honorable Judge ofSaid Court:

.·**~;;** 

### ..::. Now comes Dennis Lee Giddings, Appearing pro-se, files this motion

### ·or11tt~ objections failure to rule onNunc pro tunc defendant filed in your court, Defendant objects to the failure to rule onthe Nunc pro tunc for good cause showing the following. I 

### 1) Preservation oferrorTX.R. App. 33.1(2)(B) the trial court: has refused to rule
onthe request, Nunc pro tunc. (Zillenger v. State 557 s.w.2d 515.517 (TX. crim. app. 1997) that was filed on date of 5/2112015. 2) Objection underharm, a fact is the purpose ofNunc pro tuncjudgementis to provide a method for trial courts to correctthe record when there is a discrepancy between thejudgement as pronounced in court and thejudgment
as reflected in the record. See: Collins v. State 240 s.w. 3d 925,928 {TX crim. app 207). 3) Objection three, the original Nunc pro tunc because the court offereda plea with a No Deadly Weapon Finding, realizing a Nuncpro tunc will not workto correct thejudgementofthis finding, butwill correct the penpackthat was sent to TDCJ in error, not in compliance with the pleanotproperly entered into the record to adjust the fact some papers showuse ofdeadly weapon whenthe pleawas given and the time ofthejudgement so when TDCJ asked for further documents to be viewed, itleads one to believe there was a deadly weapon used when it wasn't. This violates See: Jones v. State 795 s.w.2nd 199.200 {TX crim. app. 1990). 4) Texas Department ofCriminal Justice requested a copy ofIndictmentthat was sent in violation ofthe plea ofthe court because the indictment states use of

### deadly weapon, further under the HB 3671 Sheffield, is against the law, regardless, the pleahas been breached. It

### is a lawyers responsibility, Rule 1.02 Scope and Objections ofRepresentation (a) a lawyer shall abide by a clients decisions: which was to remove deadly weapon fmding. No matter ifthe prosecutor or attorney is at fault, orthe clerk ofcourt, does notmatter, an error is an error and some one should correct the error. THENUNC PROTUNC ·COMES lNTOPLAYAND CANCORRECTTHEERROR, A HEARING SHOULD BE SET ON ORIGINALNUNC PRO TUNC RATHER IT'S DENIED ORNOT. IF 

### THE COURTS GRANT THE 

### NUNC PRO TUNC TO NOTIFYTDCJTHAT THE CASE IS NOT 3g. ORAUSE OF DEADLY WEAPON, FINDING DEFENDANT OBJECTS TO THIS ERRORALSO VIOLATES HB SHEFFIELD. 5) Objection to penpack violation ofart 

### 42.09 (2013) sec. 8 (a) (3) Lexis TX. code crim. Proc. for being sent to TDCJ in error oforiginal plea. 6) Objection to court after view ofwritten objection , See: Homan v. Hughes 708 s.w. 2d 499 (TX crim. app. 1986). Trial court does not have the authority to refuse request or objections to appeal ofa Nunc pro tunc Judgement i.e. not answering is a denial because defendant waived rightto appeal on original sentence. The waver does not effect his right to appeal a Nunc pro tunc. See. Curry 712.s.w. 2d at 880-at 881. The Nunc pro tunc was filed 

### in your court on 5/21/2015. A formal record that goes silent is a DENIAL. 

### ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** This is an OBJECTIONTOTHE FAILURE TO SETFORDOCKET CALLTO SETA HEARING to rule onthe Nunc pro tunc under TX. R. app. P. 33.1 once an objection is provided, then a party can file notice to the court to appeal. 7) Regardless ifthe court appointed attorney has completed his pleaprocess of the court, he still has a duty to correct this type oferror. This is a WRITTEN OBJECTION with request that either a favorable ruling on original Nunc Pro tunc, or a denial is given with facts and conclusions oflawto be provided so defendant
can further his litigation ofthe error. The failure to comply with local rules of court to set the original Nunc pro tunc on docket call will result onthe basis ofthe written objection forjurisdiction ofan appeal. Wherefore premisses considered, defendant prays that the original Nunc pro tune is ruled onrather granted ordeniedr •• ' •'"' '


### further requesting ruling ofthe written objectives because a formal record that goes silent is an admission you agree to this motion hence securing appellant review. Respectively Dennis Lee Giddings

# ~~ # 

### 1490002 Stevenson Urut

1525 

### FM 766 Cuero, TX 77954

Certificate ofService I certify onthis the 24th Day ofJuly, »IS a true copy ofthe foregoing motion was hand delivered to the Clerk ofCourt at this address 201 E SanAntonio Street. Suite 201. Boerne, Texas 78006.

### SignedC3~m-**~**

Order ofCourt Upon reviewing the written objectives it is orderedthat the original Nunc pro tune is set for a hearing onthis day of , 2015 at

__ am/ pm. It

### is further ordered that the written objections are hereby granted. It is further ordered that TDCJ will be notified that the cause Number 4739 is not a 3(g) offense oris there a finding ofthe use ofa deadly weapon. It is further ordered that facts and conclusions oflaw will be sent to offender at the Stevenson Unit of the court orders and corrections ofthis case.

Honorable Judge ofSaid Court- 

### ..,

### ..........**<r~** 

### July 26, 2015 Judge Williams
I am writing this request to youto go along with the motionthatmy sonhas filed 

### inyourcourt. He did file a Nunc pro tunc at the County Clerks Office 

### in Boerne
onMay 21, 2015 and has notheard anything back from you orthe court. I wanted to be sure thatyougot it directly. Thank you. Respectfully yours, Pat Giddings (Mother) 107 E. Wmding Loop Boerne, TX 78006 (830)981-8891., . 

# ....

The State ofTexas vs. Dennis Lee Giddings Cause NO. 4739

"Motion for Nunc-Pro-Tunc Order'' "Amended PenPac" TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Now comes Dennis Lee Giddings, defendant appearing pro-se, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for a ruling on

### this motionfor Nunc-proTunc to amend an error inthe above styled and numbered cause. In support the defendant will show this court as follows: I. 

### Defendant is submitting this Motion for Nunc-pro-Tunc Pursuant to statement regarding the nature and seriousness ofthe offense. Under42.09, Art. 8 ofthe Texas Code ofCriminal Procedure, inthe interest of justice and fairness and notto vex the court.
IT. 

### In the Judgement and conviction it clearly states that the Deadly Weapon charge was waived, leaving the crime without a deadly weapon finding. Attached is the Judgement and Sentence Plea, ofguilty. FINDINGAND USE OF DEADLYWEAPON: NONE

... Imposed: 2-07-08. InArt. 42.09 sec.8(a)&(3) nature and seriousness ofeach offense. [A simple error has occurred. TDCJ requested the indictment whichreads a deadly weapon finding, that is creating seriousness problems in Classification andParole. A Nunc-pro-Tunc is designedto fix problems like this.]


### ill. The State ofTexas can ament the Penpac with the following underthe above cause number. DenisLee Giddings was convicted of AggravatedAssaultNODEADLYWEAPON. This Statement is to clarify the nature ofthe offense for

### which Mr. 

### Giddings was convicted. The origiD.al "penpac"produced by the county contains the offense report generatedby local lawenforcement. Thatreport contains allegations ofa violentnature includingthe use ofa knife. Those allegations have been determined untrue. A simple statement from the State of Texas to the ClassificationBoard at TDCJ clarifyingthat the indictmentofdeadly weapon is incorrect. This errorviolatesArt. 42.09 ofthe seriousness ofthe offense. (Correcting andAmendingthe PenPac would fix this issue. The purpose of Nunc-pro-Tunc

# is to correct error ofthis nature, see: COLLINS V. 

### STATE 240 s.w. 3rd925,928 TX. Crim. App. 2007). 

### Inthis case thejudgementwas properly entered atthe court level,just

### not atthe pen-pac stage. Please correct this and notify: State Ready atTDCJRecords 

### PO Box 95, Huntsville Texas 77342.
WHEREFORE PREMISE CONSIDEREDDEFENDANTPRAYS THATRELIEF 

### IS GRANTED.

Certificate ofService

I Dennis Lee Giddings Certify this Nunc-pro Tunc was Hand delivered to District Clerk ofCourt at 201 E. SanAntonioAve. Suite 122 Boerne, TX onthis 18th Day of August 2015.

### ·t.l

. -.. .#

...



### The State ofTexas 

### vs. Dennis Lee Giddings Cause NO. 4739 In

### the 216 Judicial District ofKendall County, Texas ORDERREGARDINGNUNC-PROTUNC TOAMEND PENPAC

Onthis

____ day of

_____ , 2015, Defendant motion for Nunc-pro Tunc to correctpen pac.
ITIS ORDEREDANDADJUDGEDAND DECREED that the Motion for Nuncpro-Tunc should be:

_________ GRANTED

_____________ DENrnED



### It is further ordered that the amended penpac will be sentto TDCJ Classification to correct the error ofthe Deadly Weapon and the seriousness ofthe offense.

Signed and Entered onthis the

_____ day of

_________ 2015.



### JUDGE PRESIDING

## Wallace T. Ferguson

Mr. Dennis L. Giddings#1490002 Stevenson Unit 1525 FM 766 

### Cuero, TX 77954 Attorney atLaw P.O. Box 1106

. Boerne, Texas 78006 Telephone (830) 249-9596 Facsimile: (830) 249-2999 fandh@.gytc.com
June 15, 2015

RE: Cause No. 4739, State ofTexas v. Dennis Lee Giddings, in the 216th · JudicialDistrict.Court, Kendall Counrr, Texas

.. . ,_,_ ..... . .,. .. ,. . '1l;"-""**,,,..~w"'~""'.'""""""''· ;.:.;_~~:.i..~i:~~'--'·~b;;.,'-?#·.;~~.;-::.'.'..~fi!"/;:..,i-:.)-"'<;~:.':;;~.;;;;~~lf~i~~** .**.,.·,~:~Jj:W,¢.,,:;,_·**.**.._:e.f.t<t~V;}.>r..:.j:;.®.hr:tij!f.i;E$,0!.~;;:;·£t.,.,_..{.-~'""-¢~~{vr.y}f.";~r.'~:~•!~Y?f\fJi##.~~'~h!f~/.o:k~A~~~J:£!-l~~** · La use No.**ms-u.s~-CK, ~tate**  oj 1exas v. 1Jenms Lee Cizddmgs, m the <..:ounty · · Court atLaw ofKendall County, Texas Cause No. 08-036-CR, State ofTexas v. Dennis Lee Giddings, in the County Court atLaw ofKendall County, Texas
Dear Mr. Giddings: I received your letterdatedJune4, 2015. Havingfurtherreviewed myofficefiles, I hereby informyouthat

### I couldnotlocateanyadditionalphotographs,documentsorotheritems, ofwhatever kind orcharacter, which relate to your case, other than those which I have previously sent to you. Withregardtothe questions contained inyourletter, aforesaid, I will do mybestto provide answers: 1. I really do notrecall ifwe everknewthe exact reason for the hungjury- I suppose that itwas because all twelvejurors could not agree to a "Guilty'' or ''Not Guilty" verdict. 2. Also, I cannot explain why you may be classified with a deadly weapon finding. HavingreviewedyourFinalJudgmentofConviction,datedFebruary7, 2008,thisdocumentclearly

I do not need payment for the file research which I have done or for copying or other expenses. I wishyou welL

WTF:trm Very trulyyours,

Wallace T. erguson Attorney at LawAnnouncements • Summary of Notable Legislation

- 81 st Legislative Session 8/31/15, 6:19PM

HB 1736 by Anchia

- requires TOO to develop a reentry and reintegration plan that would include life-skills, job, and vocational training for a wrongfully imprisoned person following discharge, for as long as the services are beneficial. The bill also requires TOO to provide a state identification card and financial-assistance to aid in covering living expenses following discharge, administered by TCOOMMI, not to exceed $10,000. The bill provides that the amount of the financial assistance is deducted from compensation provided or damages awarded the person under the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. TCOOMMI is required to develop a plan, using existing case management functions, to assist wrongfully imprisoned persons upon discharge from TOO in accessing medical and dental records, obtaining mental health treatment and related support services, and obtaining appropriate transitional support services. TCOOMMI will submit an annual report to the legislature regarding the provision of services to wrongfully imprisoned persons. HB 1914 by McReynolds

- abolishes the existing Private Sector Prison Industry Oversight Authority contingent upon the Bureau ofJustice Assistance certifying TBO as the new prison industry enhancement (PIE) authority. The bill lowers the cap on the number of PIE program participants at 750 and allows for temporarily exceeding the cap. The bill also adds more extensive notification requirements before contracts are entered into, but exempts existing contracts/programs from the notification requirements. There Is a requirement to pay fair market value for lease of property and provisions precluding negative impact on existing employers, but again existing contracts/programs are exempted. The balance of the Private Sector Prison Industry Oversight Account is capped at no more than $1,000,000. HB 2004 by McCall

- requires state and local agencies to notify individuals when their sensitive personal information has been acquired as a result of an unauthorized breach. Agencies must contact persons through various mediums including written or electronic communication. In certain instances, an agency may use other methods for notifying affected parties of breaches of security. HB 2086 by Moody

- makes the offenses of escape, permitting or facilitating escape, introducing or providing implements for escape, and prohibited substances and items in adult orjuvenile correctional or detention facility or on property of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice or Texas Youth Commission punishable as engaging in organized criminal activity. HB 2153 by Edwards

- expands the jurisdictions In which a person committing an offense under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ch. 62, Sex Offender Registration) may be prosecuted and requires that a person residing at a temporary or unidentified address provide the applicable law enforcement agencies with a detailed description of its geographical location. HB 2161 by Turner

- requires TOO to request on behalf of most releasing offenders a personal identification certificate from DPS. The bill requires TOO, DPS, and the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to adopt a MOU that establishes the responsibilities related to the verification of the offender's identity. The bill requires TDO to reimburse DSHS and DPS the actual costs associated with obtaining the personal ID certificate. A similar requirement is found in HB 2730, the DPS sunset bill, which requires an inmate identification verification pilot program. HB 2236 by Moody

- entitles a victim or the representative for a victim of an assault or sexual assault who is younger than 17 years of age or whose case involves family violence to have the court consider the impact on the victim of a continuance requested by the defendant. HB 2289 by Madden

- requires TOO to develop a procedure for releasing offenders from the facility in which they are serving their sentence or from a regional release facility nearest their facility (bill requires no fewer than six regional release sites). The bill allows TDO to make exceptions if regional release is not in the best interest of the inmate or would threaten public safety. The bill calls for implementation by 9/1/2010. HB 3226 by Madden

- allows TDO to issue payment for use by the inmate or parolee to pay the cost of temporary post-release housing in the offender's legal county of residence at a rate not to exceed the average daily cost of incarceration. TDO must also provide for food, hygiene and clothing. TDO is directed to pay the cost of housing from funds appropriated for halfway houses. The bill applies to offenders released after 1/1/2010. HB 3228 by Madden

- authorizes TDO (and TYC) to own and operate electronic, mechanical or other devices for the detection and monitoring of cell phones, and authorizes the OIG to possess, install, operate and monitor these devices. Jamming devices, to the extent consistent with federal law, are also authorized. The bill also makes it illegal to obtain a cell phone or component part with intent to deliver to an offender, to possess with intent to deliver, to provide another person with a cell phone or component part with intent to deliver to an offender, or to purchase minutes for the offender's use. HB 3438 by Hodge

- provides the Board of Criminal Justice with permissive authority to transfer Dawson State Jail to the City of Dallas for a comparable facility within 20 miles of the Dawson Unit. HB 3649 b}t' Marquez

- requires TOO to establish a policy that permits an inmate to receive by mail reference books and other educational materials from a volunteer organization. HB 3653 by Marquez

- prohibits the use of restraints on pregnant inmates or pregnant defendants during labor and delivery or recovery, except where necessary to ensure security and safety, or to prevent escape risks exist. HB 3671 by Sheffield

- deletes the record of arrest as a required item in the pen packet.

https://www.tdc].state.tx.us/announcements/announce_Summary_of_Notable_Legislation_81st_Session.html Page 2 of 3
' ' 

## £X11taiTF