January 23,

Honorable F. T. Graham Criminal District Attorney CameronCounty Courthouse Brounsvllle, Texas 78520

Dear Mr. Qraham: 1973 Opinion No. Ii-2 Re: Queetlons relating to signature and entry of a judgment nisi by a District Court at a term subsequent to XwnMtlonand docketing of the judgment. Your letter of November 21, 1972 requesting our opinion concerning the entry of a judgment nisi aeks two basic queatlons: (1) Cana judgment nisi be signed at a term

subsequent to that In which lt was rendered and docketed? (2) If it can be algned at a subsequent term, what 

### is the errect or a statute of llmltatlon or of lathes? Judgments nlai are controlled by Title 22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Thejudgment nisi lteelf Is but the first step In the forfeiture of a b&i1 bond and securing of judgment against the defendant and his euretiea for the amount 

### of ball. Ae such It la an Interlocutory jud ent and Is oonditional. Jaokaon v. State, 422 S.il. 2d 48(Tex.Crlm. 1968) ft”Generally, In 01~11 matters, where all issues have been adjudicated or agreed upon, announoement by the court of its decision la the “rendition” of judgment and the wrftten .Sudnmentis but evidence of the .ludxment nrevlousla rendered’: xeatherwood v. Holland 37 S.g.2;~ 517,lTex.Clv. APP., Ft.Worth 1964 f 402 S.W.2d 768’,(Tex:C~~~:f~66). Bauahv. State, This 13 held to be true even though the judge, at the time he signs thh wrltten order, no longer is a judge. Texae Life Ina, Co. v. Tuxar

,. -

Honorable F: ,T. Graham,.Page 2 (H-2)

g?yx&““i” 1 307 S.U.2d 149,(Tex.Clv.App.Ft.Worth,1957).

n this latter case analogized the written Judgmentto a bill of exception. Thla rule has been applied to a Judgmentnisi in Bennett v, State, 394 S.W.2d 804(Tex.Crlm.1965), where, In thesequent suit against the sureties, the sureties objected to admission of the judgment nisi becauee It had not been signed by the trial judge. The court said:

II sIgnat&; i47 e observe that although the judge’s

not appear on the judgment lntroduced In evidence from the minutes of the court, his signature was not necessary to the validity of the judgment.

. . .“(394 S.W.2d at 807) Article 22.04 of Vernon’s Code of Criminal Procedure doe8 require that a copy of the judgment of forfeiture be attached to the citation served upon the sureties. Tothat extent, then, we conclude that a written judgment must be entered. Under the decision Pnthe Bennett ca8e It la our opinion that whether or not the judmm signed Is relatively unimportant If, In fact, It was “rendered” by the oourt e Article 22.10 provldea that, whena forfeiture has been declared and the oase has been docketed upon the civil docket, “the prooeadlngs had therein shall be governed by ’ the samerules governing other civil suits.” In civil suits, where through olerlcal error no written judgment haa been entered or the written judgment entered does not correctly reflect the judgment rendered, a judgment

. nunc pro tune may be entered so that the written judgment correctly reflects the judgment rendered. Such judgment nunc pro tune maybe entered after the term at which It was rendered has ended. Comet Aluminum Co. v. Dlbrell, 450 S.W.2d 56(Tex.1970); Texas Rubber Supply Inc. V:,:Jetslide International Inc.,466 S.m279(Tex.1971) Wetherefore answer your first question that a written judgment nlsl.may be signed by the dlstrlot oourt at a term subsequent to that In whloh It wa8rendero4 and docketed._ -.

. . .

Honorable F. T. Qraham,page 3, (H-2)

With reference to your second questionwe callyour attention toArticle 5517 Vernon's Texas Civil Statute@, which provides that the rightsof the State shallnot be barred by any provision of Title 91, "Limitations". Hemphlll Countyv. Adams, 408 S.W.2d926 (Tex., 1966); see also 37 Tex.Jur.2dLimitationof Actions, Section 27, p.120 toT22.
Nor is lathesavailable in a suit against the State. Eellas Levee ImprovementDistrict v. Carroll, 263 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1953, error ref. n.r.e.) Therefore,a8 to the second questionwe answer that It is our opinion that the'actionagainst the suretieswould not be barred by either limitationor lathes even though the judgmentnisimight be signedat a term subsequent to that at which It was rendered.-SUMMARYA judgmentnisimay be signedat a term after that In which ltwae rendered. Since neither llmltatlon.norlathesapplies to a suit brought by the State, a delays occassloned by reduction of the judgmentnisi to writing or Its signingat a term subsequent to that In which It was rendered,will not bar an action underArticle 22.03 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A Yours very truly,

APPROVED:

Assistant /

DAVID M KENDALL Chairman Oplnion'Commltte;! -s-