## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate Dis trict of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00100

- CR

_____ ________ ______________

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR14480 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. M emoran dum Opinion by Justice Birdwell 

### L

ACEY 

### N OELLE 

### T ANNEHILL 

### , Appellant
V 

### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION We dis mis s Appellant Lacey Noelle Tan nehill ’ s appeal as moot . A fter Tanne hill had appealed an d filed her brief , the trial court signed a judgment n unc pro tunc correcting the clerical error about which she complained
. I. B ACK GROUND Tannehill ple d guilty without the benefi t of a plea bargain to theft under $2,500 with two prior convictions, and t he trial cour t placed her on deferred adjudication communi t y supervis ion. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (e)(4) (D)
. About four months later, t he State filed a mot ion to proceed with an ad judication of guilt and alleged that Tannehill had violated the conditions of her pro bation in eighte en paragraphs identifie d as (A) through (R). At the he aring on the State ’ s motion, Tannehill ple d true to paragr aphs (F ) th rough (R) , and consist ent with Tannehill ’ s pleas, the trial court found paragraphs (F) through (R) true , adjudicated her g uilty, and sentenced her to impri s onm ent for two years in a state jail facility. The trial court ’ s judgmen t , howe ver, shows that Tannehill ple d true and that the trial court found paragraphs (A) through (R ) true. Tanneh ill appealed
. II. T ANNEHILL ’ S AND THE STATE ’ S CONTENTIONS I n her brief, T annehill contends in one issue that t he judgment does not comport w ith the trial co urt ’ s oral pronouncement , that the oral pro nouncement controls , and that the judgment should be reformed to reflect that the trial court3 found only paragraphs (F) through ( R ) true. See Coffey v. State , 979 S.W.2d 326, 32 8

– 29 (Tex . Crim. Ap p. 1998). In response, the S ta te concedes that Tannehill is entitled to a judgment that correspond s to the trial court ’ s oral pronouncement. But the State argues that T ann ehill ’ s complain t has beco me moo t because the trial court signed a judgment nunc pro tunc correct ing this clerical error so that the jud gment now properly refl e cts i ts ora l pro nounc ement. See Blanton v. State , 369 S.W.3d 894, 897

– 98 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2012); Henke l v. Stat e , No. 13

- 03

- 00112

- CR, 2005 WL 5926929, at *8 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Ch risti

– Edinbur g Apr. 14, 2005, no pet. ) (mem. o p., not designate d for pub lication). A supplemental clerk ’ s record shows that a day after T a nnehill filed her brief, the trial court s igned a j u dgment nu nc pro tunc correct ing the error about which she complained and effect ing the relief that s he so ught on appeal. III. DI SCUSSION AND RULING A n appeal becomes moot w hen an appellate court ’ s judgment can no longer have an effect on an existing con trovers y or cannot affect the part ies ’ rights
. Jack v. S tate , 149 S.W.3d 119, 123 n.10 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2004) ; Hung Dasian Truong v. State , 580 S.W.3d 203, 207 ( Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Di st. ] 2 019 , no pet.)
. Appellate

c ourts normally cannot act on moot case s . P h arris v. State , 165 S.W.3d 681, 687

– 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting an exception

— “ w hen a claim i s ‘ ca pable of rep etition, yet evading review ’ ” ) ; Hung Dasian Truong , 580 S.W.3d at 207
. Nor may they entertain hypothetical claims or render advisory opinio n s . Carter v. State , No. 06

- 19

- 00172

- CR,4 2020 WL 5223327, at *5 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Sept . 2, 2020 , pet . ref ’ d) (me m. op. , not designated for publication) ; Di x v. State , 289 S. W.3d 333, 335 (Tex. App.

— E astland 2009 , pet. ref ’ d)
. The mootness doctri ne lim i ts courts to deciding cases with actual controvers ies between parties. Hung Dasian Truon g

, 580 S. W.3d at 207 ; Ex p arte Flores , 130 S.W.3d 100, 104

– 05 (Tex. A pp.
— El Paso 2003, pet. ref ’ d). “When there has ceased to be a controver sy between the liti gating parties which is due to events occurring after judgment has been rendered by the trial co urt, the decis ion of an ap pellate court would be a mere academic exer cise and the court may not deci de the appeal.” Flores , 130 S.W.3d at 10 5 ; see Nicolas v. S tate , N o s . 04

- 13

- 00834

- CR, 04

- 13

- 00835

- CR, 2014 WL 1089791, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Mar. 19, 2014, n o pet.) (per curiam) ( mem. op. , not designated for publication) (dismissing a ppeal s because trial court granted appellant the relief he sought) ; Lamb v. Stat e , No. 05

- 09

- 00836

- CR, 2010 WL 2560548, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas June 28, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., n ot designated for pub l ication) (dismissing appe al because judgment nunc pro t unc
mo oted issue ) ; cf. Guajardo v. State , No s . 04

- 17

- 00421

- CR, 04

- 17

- 004 22

- CR, 2 018 WL 3129 452, at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio June 27, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ( overru l i ng fi rst point on merits and d is missing second poi nt be c ause judgment s nunc pro tunc mooted it; affirming jud gment s nunc pro
tu nc)
.5 B e c ause the t r ial court ’ s judgment nunc pro tunc corrected the er ror a bout which T annehill ’ s brief com plained , we dismiss he r appeal a s moot . See Hun g Dasian Truong , 580 S.W.3d a t 2 11
. /s/ Wade Birdwell Wade Birdwell Jus tice Do Not Publish Tex. R. A pp. P. 47.2(b) D elivere d : June 3, 2021