### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 668 -CR

Re ube n Vi nc e ntRa bsa tt , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 5567 5 , HO NORAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt R e ub e n V inc e nt R a

bs a tt a pp e a ls t he dis tr ict cou rt ’s or de r o ve rr uli nghis motion to s et aside the entry of a nunc pro tunc judgme nt c onvicting him of e ng ag ing in or g anized criminal ac tivity
. SeeTex. P en al Code Ann. § 71.02 (West Supp. 2006). He c ontends that the district court improper ly

used the nunc pro tunc proc edure to add, af t er se ntence had begun, an aff irmative finding that a deadly wea pon was used in the commission of the offe nse. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 3g (a) (2) ( West 2006). Finding no err or, we will affirm the or der.

Appellant plea ded g uilty to a n indictment a ccusing him of shooting Charle s Miller with a fire arm with the intent to participate in a cr iminal comb i n at i on. On Fe bruar y 17, 2005, appellant wa s adjudg ed guilty by the trial court: “[T] he evidenc e is suf ficient to f

ind you g uilty

as char g ed in the indictment, and the Court f inds y ou g uilty of that off

ense w ith the affir

mative finding of a de adly

wea pon.” The court sentenced appellant to imprisonment for ten y ear s. Although theAn orde r g rantinga motion for judg ment nunc pro tunc is an appe alable or der. See 1 Mo or e v . S

tate , 4 46 S.W. 2d

87 8, 87 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 69 ); Ex pa rteCur

ry , 712 S.W .2d 878, 880 (Tex. App.—Austin 1986, no pet.). B eca use the trial c ourt g rante d the State’s motion without formal notice or a

hear ing, and appellant’ s first opportunity to object was at the hear ing on his motion to set aside the nunc pro tunc judg ment, we c onclude that a ppellant is entitled to appea l the court’s or der overr uling the motion. The State doe s not argue other wise. 2 court ha d expressly

found that a de adly

wea pon was used in the commi ssion of t he offense, and the court made a notation to that eff ec t o n i t s d ocket, that f

inding wa s not contained in the wr itten judgme nt of conviction sig ned by the judg e. To the c ontrary , the judg ment in d i ca t ed t h at an aff irmative finding reg ardingthe use of a deadly wea pon was “ Not Applicable.” The omission of the dea dly wea pon fin d in g

f r o m t h e wr it te n ju d g me nt was discover ed in Marc h 2006, when the district court wa s notified that appellant ha d been r elea sed on par ole. On J une 20, 2006, the State f iled a motion for judg ment nunc pro tunc asking that “a ft er notice and hear ing” the cour

t c orre ct the judgme nt to add the aff irmative finding
. The c ourt signe d a nunc pr o tun c j u d gment containingthe af firmative f

inding the da

y the State’s motion was filed. On J uly 18, 2006, appellant moved to se t aside the nunc pro tunc judgment and asked for a he aring . The hear ing w as held on Oc tober 26, 2006, after which the cour t overrule d appellant’ s motion. Appellant the n p e rf e c te d th is a

pp e a l. 1 A nunc pr o tunc orde r may be used only

to corre ct a clerica l err or t o which no judicial
rea soning c ontributed. J

im ine z v. S tate , 953 S.W .2d 293, 295 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 1997, pet. re f’d)
. The nunc pro tunc proc edure may be used to a lter a judgme nt to ref lect the cour

t’s actua l order or fi n d i n g, but it may

not be used to add a

n order or finding not previously made. S m i th v . Stat e , 15 S.W .3d 294, 299 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pe t.). Appellant a rgues that the omission of the3

aff irmative finding in the original judg ment of convic tion was not a cle rica l error . I nstead, he argues that the judg ment ref

lected the court’s deter

mination that a

n aff irmative finding was not applica ble. Appellant conte nds that by addingthe af

firmative f

indi n g t o the nunc pr o tunc judg ment, the trial
c ourt imp ro pe rl y

c ha ng e d it s judg me nt an d co nv e rt e d what had be e n anor din ary of fe ns e fo r p aro le purposes into an off

ense w ith a later parole eligibility date. SeeTex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 508.145(d) (We st Su pp . 2 00 6) ; se e als o id . § 508.149(a) (1). A substantially

identical situation was pre sented to the Cou rt in Cur ry v . S tate , 72 0 S. W.2 d 2 61 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 86 , p e t. r e f’ d) . In th at c a se , th e tr ie r o f f a c t a ff ir mativ e ly found that a f

irea rm or other de adly

wea pon had bee n used duringthe commission of the offe nse, b u t th e f in d in g w a s n o t e n te r e d in th e o r ig in a l ju d g me nt. Id
. at 262. Afte r the de fenda nt was rele ased on pa

role, the tria l court sig ned a nunc pro tunc judgme nt containingthe af firmative f

inding and order ed the defe ndant re turned to custody
. Id . The Court af firmed the nunc pro tunc orde r af ter concludingthat the omission of the aff irmative finding in the orig inal judgme nt was a c lerica l error and that the a ddition of the finding nunc pro tunc did not constitute an improper alteration of the sentenc e. Id . at 263.

I n this case, the rec ord shows that the trial c ourt, as trier of fa ct, af

firmatively

found that a fire arm wa s used duringthe commission of the offe nse. The c onflict betwe en the c ourt’s ora l finding at trial and the “not applica ble” notation in the wr itten judgment must be re solved in favor of the ora l finding. Se e Cof fe yv . S tate , 979 S.W .2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The omission of the a ffirmative finding in the orig inal judgme nt was a cler ical err or subject to corr ection nunc pr o tunc, and the trial court did not alter the nature of the offe nse or c hang e the se ntence imposed when4

it entere d the nunc pr o tunc judg ment. Cur ry , 720 S
. W
. 2d at 263. Appellant’ s point of error is overrule d. The orde r over ruling the m otion to set aside the nunc pro tunc judgme nt is affirmed.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Nove mber 15, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh