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 1 
Does 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, Writ ten 

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 3 
Relator 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-ProTtmc. 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 4 
Parole 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 5 
894,897(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 6 
State 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 ncli nga 011 u&e Fi Jldi nga 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 Presiding 
Dennis Lee Giddings 

vs. 

State ofTexas 

Cause Number 4739 

In the 216th Judicial 

District of 

Kendall County, Texas 

Nunc Pro Tunc Order for Honorable Judge 

To the Honorable Judge of said court; 

Now comes Dennis Lee Giddings appearing pro-se, britiging to the a~ntion of the 

trial court that the judgement in the above numbered cause contains an error in the · 

court. There is no finding of a deadly weapon per the court and the defendant will 

show the following errors; 

1. The trial court can correct ·a clerical error in the judgement at any time even 

after it loses plenary power over the judgement. 

2. A Clerical Error is a "Discrepancy" between entry of a judgement in the 

official record and judgement as actually rendered. See: universe under writes 

Ins. co. v. ferguson 471 3.w2d 26, 28 29-30, TXI97J. 

3. On Feb. 5~ 2008 a jury trial was conducted that ended in a hung jury. 

Attorney office extended a plea bargain for 20 years confmement in TI)CJ -i~ 

zero fine and contained no finding of deadly weapon. See Exhibit .ILl- e 

Under this plea, the state, after hung jury, entered the plea as waiver of the 

deadly weapon finding. It is common. for a plea to be accepted and the paper 

work not corrected to show no deadly weapon finding was· agreed upo.n. 

Because of this, it is now creating further injury to the defendant by violating 

the agreed plea of no deadly weapon finding furth~r errors do exist. 

In Code of Criminal Procedure 42.09 pen packet ·sent to TDCJ that is in error does 

not show TDCJ there is No deadly weapon finding, that is causing injury affecting 

good time and dassification and Parole. 

There are many factors that could be stated on the face of this plea that has a 

clerical error. The plea reads No deadly weapon finding. The dOcuments sent to 

TDCJ show an offense for which the judgement contains 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 of a Nunc Pro Tunc Judgement is to provide a method for trial courts to 

correct the record when there is discrepancy between the judgment that was 

actually rendered, but that for some reason was not properly entered into the record 

at tt,Je time of judgement. In this cause #4739 the tier of fact made was "No finding 

. of deadly weapon." Other cases like Exparte POE 751 s. w.2d 873 {TX. Crim App. 

1988) and Exparte Dopps, 723 s. w. 2d 669 (TX Crim App. 1986) were denied because a. 

Nunc Pro Tunc could not correct a judicial error. In case number 4 739 is a clerical 

error. In this case 4739 the trier of faci made No affirmative finding or use of -

deadly weapon, compare Crumptom v. State 301 s. w. 3d 663 (TX. Crim. App. 201 0) 

where the trier of fact made an a:ffinnative finding of the use of deadly weapon 

which made a Nunc pro Tunc to have no standing. In this case there is no deadly 

weapon finding. The trier of fact is presented wi~ and responds in the affirmative 

to a special issue regarding the defendants use of exhibition of a deadly weapon or 

firearm during the commission of the offense. 

Notice requirement of the due process clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments 

of the US Constitution must be examined in that light. Polk v. state 693 s. w. 2d. 391 

(TX Crim.App. 1985). 

The trier of fact states in this case 4739 waiver of deadly weapon, No finding of 

deadly weapon. It is 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 of each offense and that st-ates the 

citation to the provision or provisions of the penal code or other law under which 

the defendant was convicted.· 

''Because the indictment reads to wit a knife" once the state sent the paperwork by 

TX Code of Criminal Proc. 42.09 without correcting the fact there is no deadly 

weapon finding which was conducted after the hung jury, causes serious clerical 

error. 

Due to this, the clerical error is seen when classification or parole or the pen packet 

is viewed, it is eritei-ed as deadly weapon, the offense reports are also effecting this, 

creating a problem. It is obviouS that the plea ofNo deadly weapon went no 

further than the court. Had the defendant known the eff~ of this, he could have . ' 

followed thru to insure tha~ ~.·Nunc Pro Tunc order was filed and prepared to . . . •- .• .:.• 

correct what is today affecting what the District Attorney offered. The waiver of 

~i 
.. , ... ~· ... 

deadly weapon, is supposed to be corrected on all documents, not just voiced in 

court. A lot of times District Attorneys will waive enhancements on a habitual if 

the plea is accepted or like in this case taking a plea to waive the deadly weapon, 

find out later this does not place every one on the same page, just like this case. 

There is no weapon finding , why is defendant doing a sentence that is like a 

weaponcrime ..... The only solution would be to prepare a Nunc Pro Tun1:; order 

correcting the fact case number 4739 is not an aggravative crime or a plea with a 

deadly weapon or a 3G crime. 

Ms Lucy Wilke, Assistant District Attorney for the 216th Judicial District 

Attorneys office contained No finding of deadly weapon. Defendant is not 

attacking the sentence, only requesting the court to corr~ their own error by· filing 

a Nunc Pro Tunc s~g that this crime does not have a deadly weapon fiiltding. 

That the state waived this issue beings the pen-packet is incorrect with the · 

indictment showing deadly weapon creating a 30 crime that is not true.· 

Wherefore premises considered, defendant prays that the court files a Nunc Pro 

Tuiic order correcting all papers that show use of or barring deadly weapon finding 

for cause # 4 739 to remove this from the pen packet, the judgement papers sent to 

TDCJ and all clerical errors. 

Certificate of Service 

I Dennis Lee Giddings Certify this Nunc Pro Tunc Motion with order was band 

. delivered to the District Clerk of Court ~~t ~o Av~. Suite 122, Boerne, 

TX. on this 21 Day ofMay 2015 ....... x~ · . 

· · ORDER 

Upon Viewing ofNunc Pro Tunc order this honorable court finds there is 

good cause to correct deadly weapon finding and pen pal that has indictmtmt 

y weapon finding and any other documents that are out of order to 

way ofNtmc Pro Tunc order. It is therefore ordered to send notice 

fications of the Nunc Pro Tunc Order to correct the error. 

't!~~,~~Day of of 2015 This Nunc Pro Tunc, is grallted. 

Honorable Judge of said Court 
.~· 

Dennis Lee Giddings 

vs. 

State ofTexas 

Cause Number 4739 

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 of Said Court: . · ~;; . .::. 

Now comes Dennis Lee Giddings, Appearing pro-se, files this motion ·or11tt~ 

objections failure to rule on Nunc pro tunc defendant filed in your court, Defendant 

objects to the failure to rule on the 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 

on the 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 under harm, a fact is the purpose of Nunc pro tunc judgement is to 

provide a method for trial courts to correct the record when there is a 

discrepancy between the judgement as pronounced in court and the judgment 

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 offered a plea 

with a No Deadly Weapon Finding, realizing a Nunc pro tunc will not work to 

correct the judgement of this finding, but will correct the pen pack that was 

sent to TDCJ in error, not in compliance with the plea not properly entered into 

the record to adjust the fact some papers show use of deadly weapon when the 

plea was given and the time of the judgement so when TDCJ asked for further 

documents to be viewed, it leads 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 of Criminal Justice requested a copy of Indictment that was 

sent in violation of the plea of the court because the indictment states use of 
deadly weapon, further under the HB 3671 Sheffield, is against the law, 

regardless, the plea has been breached. It is a lawyers responsibility, Rule 1.02 

Scope and Objections of Representation (a) a lawyer shall abide by a clients 

decisions: which was to remove deadly weapon fmding. No matter if the 

prosecutor or attorney is at fault, or the clerk of court, does not matter, an error 

is an error and some one should correct the error. THE NUNC PRO TUNC 

·COMES lNTO PLAY AND CAN CORRECT THE ERROR, A HEARING 

SHOULD BE SET ON ORIGINAL NUNC PRO TUNC RATHER IT'S 

DENIED OR NOT. IF THE COURTS GRANT THE NUNC PRO TUNC TO 

NOTIFY TDCJ THAT THE CASE IS NOT 3g. ORA USE OF DEADLY 

WEAPON, FINDING DEFENDANT OBJECTS TO THIS ERROR ALSO 

VIOLATES HB SHEFFIELD. 

5) Objection to pen pack violation of art 42.09 (2013) sec. 8 (a) (3) Lexis TX. 

code crim. Proc. for being sent to TDCJ in error of original plea. 

6) Objection to court after view of written 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 of a Nunc pro tunc Judgement i.e. not 

answering is a denial because defendant waived right to 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 OBJECTION TO THE FAILURE TO SET FOR DOCKET CALL TO 

SET A HEARING to rule on the 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 if the court appointed attorney has completed his plea process of 

the court, he still has a duty to correct this type of error. 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 of law to be provided so defendant 

can further his litigation of the error. The failure to comply with local rules of 

court to set the original Nunc pro tunc on docket call will result on the basis of the 

written objection for jurisdiction of an appeal. Wherefore premisses considered, 

defendant prays that the original Nunc pro tune is ruled on rather granted or denied 
r •• ' 

•'"' ' 

further requesting ruling of the 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 of Service 

I certify on this the 24th Day of July, »IS a true copy of the foregoing motion was 

hand delivered to the Clerk of Court at this address 201 E San Antonio Street. Suite 

201. Boerne, Texas 78006. SignedC3~m- ~ 

Order of Court 

Upon reviewing the written objectives it is ordered that the original Nunc pro tune 

is set for a hearing on this 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 or is there a finding of the use of a deadly weapon. It is further ordered 

that facts and conclusions of law will be sent to offender at the Stevenson Unit of 

the court orders and corrections of this case. 

Honorable Judge of Said Court 
- .. , .......... 

<r~ 

July 26, 2015 

Judge Williams 

I am writing this request to you to go along with the motion that my son has filed 

in your court. He did file a Nunc pro tunc at the County Clerks Office in Boerne 

on May 21, 2015 and has not heard anything back from you or the court. I wanted 

to be sure that you got it directly. Thank you. 

Respectfully yours, 

Pat Giddings (Mother) 

107 E. Wmding Loop 

Boerne, TX 78006 

(830)981-8891 
., . .... 

The State of Texas 

vs. 

Dennis Lee Giddings 

Cause NO. 4 739 

"Motion for Nunc-Pro-Tunc Order'' 

"Amended Pen Pac" 

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 motion for Nunc-proTunc to amend an error in the 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 of the offense. Under 42.09, Art. 8 

of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, in the interest of justice and fairness and 

not to 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, of guilty. 

FINDING AND USE OF DEADLY WEAPON: NONE ... Imposed: 2-07-08. 

In Art. 42.09 sec.8(a)&(3) nature and seriousness of each offense. 

[A simple error has occurred. TDCJ requested the indictment which reads a deadly 

weapon finding, that is creating seriousness problems in Classification and Parole. 

A Nunc-pro-Tunc is designed to fix problems like this.] 

ill. 

The State of Texas can ament the Pen pac with the following under the 

above cause number. Denis Lee Giddings was convicted of Aggravated AssaultNO DEADLY WEAPON. This Statement is to clarify the nature of the offense for 
which Mr. Giddings was convicted. The origiD.al "pen pac" produced by the 

county contains the offense report generated by local law enforcement. That report 

contains allegations of a violent nature including the use of a knife. Those 

allegations have been determined untrue. A simple statement from the State of 

Texas to the Classification Board at TDCJ clarifying that the indictment of deadly 

weapon is incorrect. This error violates Art. 42.09 of the seriousness of the 

offense. 

(Correcting and Amending the PenPac would fix this issue. The purpose of 

Nunc-pro-Tunc is to correct error of this nature, see: COLLINS V. STATE 240 s.w. 

3rd 925,928 TX. Crim. App. 2007). In this case the judgement was properly 

entered at the court level, just not at the pen-pac stage. Please correct this and 

notify: State Ready at TDCJRecords PO Box 95, Huntsville Texas 77342. 

WHEREFORE PREMISE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT PRAYS THAT RELIEF 

IS GRANTED. 

Certificate of Service 

I Dennis Lee Giddings Certify this Nunc-pro Tunc was Hand delivered to District 

Clerk of Court at 201 E. San Antonio Ave. Suite 122 Boerne, TX on this 18th Day 

of August 2015. 
·t.l . -.. .# ... 

The State ofTexas 

vs. 

Dennis Lee Giddings 

Cause NO. 4739 

In the 216 Judicial 

District of Kendall 

County, Texas 

ORDER REGARDING NUNC-PRO TUNC TO AMEND PEN PAC 

On this ____ day of _____ , 2015, Defendant motion for Nunc-pro Tunc 

to correct pen pac. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion for Nuncpro-Tunc should be: 

_________ GRANTED _____________ DENrnED 

It is further ordered that the amended pen pac will be sent to TDCJ Classification 

to correct the error of the Deadly Weapon and the seriousness of the offense. 

Signed and Entered on this the _____ day of _________ 2015. 

JUDGE PRESIDING 
Wallace T. Ferguson 

Mr. Dennis L. Giddings #1490002 

Stevenson Unit 

1525 FM 766 

Cuero, TX 77954 

Attorney at Law 

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 of Texas v. Dennis Lee Giddings, in the 216th · 

Judicial District. 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 1 exas v. 1Jenms Lee Cizddmgs, m the <..:ounty · · 

Court at Law of Kendall County, Texas 

Cause No. 08-036-CR, State of Texas v. Dennis Lee Giddings, in the County 

Court at Law of Kendall County, Texas 

Dear Mr. Giddings: 

I received your letter dated June 4, 2015. Having further reviewed my office files, I hereby 

inform you that I could not locate any additional photographs, documents or other items, of whatever 

kind or character, which relate to your case, other than those which I have previously sent to you. 

With regard to the questions contained in your letter, aforesaid, I will do my best to provide 

answers: 

1. I really 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 ''Not Guilty" verdict. 

2. Also, I cannot explain why you may be classified with a deadly weapon finding. 

Having reviewed your Final Judgment of Conviction, dated February 7, 2008, this document clearly 

I do not need payment for the file research which I have done or for copying or other 

expenses. 

I wish you welL 

WTF:trm 

Very truly yours, 

Wallace T. erguson 

Attorney at Law 
Announcements • 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 of Justice 

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 or juvenile 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 

' ' £X11taiT F