January 23, 

Honorable F. T. Graham 

Criminal District Attorney 

Cameron County 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 

XwnMtlon and 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) Can a 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. The judgment 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 ft48(Tex.Crlm. ” 1968) 

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 .Sudnment is 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). 

Bauah v. 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 

Judgment to a bill of exception. 

Thla rule has been applied to a Judgment nisi 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&; i 47 

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. To that 

extent, then, we conclude that a written judgment must be 

entered. Under the decision Pn the 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, when a forfeiture has been 

declared and the oase has been docketed upon the civil 

docket, “the prooeadlngs had therein shall be governed by ’ 

the same rules 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 may be 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) 

We therefore 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 wa8 rendero4 and docketed. 
_ -. 

. . . 

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

With reference to your second question we call your 

attention to Article 5517 Vernon's Texas Civil Statute@, 

which provides that the rights of the State shall not be 

barred by any provision of Title 91, "Limitations". 

Hemphlll County v. Adams, 408 S.W.2d 926 (Tex., 1966); 

see also 37 Tex.Jur.2d Limitation of Actions, Section 

27, p.120 toT22. 

Nor is lathes available in a suit against the State. 

Eellas Levee Improvement District v. Carroll, 263 S.W.2d 

307 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1953, error ref. n.r.e.) 

Therefore, a8 to the second question we answer that It 

is our opinion that the'action against the sureties would 

not be barred by either limitation or lathes even though 

the judgment nisi might be signed at a term subsequent to 

that at which It was rendered. 

-SUMMARYA judgment nisi may be signed at a term 

after that In which ltwae rendered. Since 

neither llmltatlon.nor lathes applies to a 

suit brought by the State, a delays occassloned 

by reduction of the judgment nisi to writing 

or Its signing at a term subsequent to that 

In which It was rendered, will not bar an 

action under Article 22.03 et seq. of the Code 

of Criminal Procedure. 

A Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

Assistant 

/ 

DAVID M KENDALL Chairman 

Oplnion'Commltte;! 

-s-