## NO. 12-09-00276-CR
IN TH E CO UR T O F AP P EA LS
TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

' IN RE: ALL

EN MILLER

, RELATOR ' ORIGINAL PROCEE DING '
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Allen Roy

Miller seeks a

writ of prohibiti o n t o preve nt the trial court f rom amending , modif

y i n g, o r revoking his probation in trial court cause number 05CR16469,

o r t ak i n g an y

ac t i o nt o b en ch wa rr an th i m b ac k t o S h el b y

C o u n t y fo r f u rt h er p ro ce ed i n gs in t hat c a us e numbe r. He fu

rther re qu e sts a

wr it o f m a

nd a mus dir e c tin g the tr ia l c ourt to wi t hdrawany

war rants or de tainers that have bee n issued in connec tion with the St ate’ s motion to revoke Miller’s proba tion in cause number

05CR16469. A w ri t of

pr oh ibi tio n is us e d to pr ote c t th e su bje c t matte r o f a

n a pp e a l or to prohibit an unlawful inter fer ence with the enfor ceme nt o f a s u p erior c ourt’s orde r and judgme nts. Sivley v. Sivley , 972 S.W

. 2 d 8 5 0 , 863-64 (T ex
. Ap p
. – T y l er 1 9 9 8 , o ri g. proce eding ) (c o m b i n ed ap p eal a nd orig . proce eding ). A pa rty seekinga wr it of prohibition must demonstrate that (1) it has no other a dequate reme dy at law a nd that (2) it is clearly

entitled t o t h e re lief soug ht. In r eSta te , 1 8 0 S. W. 3 d 4 2 3 , 4 2 5 ( T e x. App.–Tyler 2005, orig . proce ed ing) . That par ty must also show that the reque sted writ of prohibition relates to a p en d ing a ppeal ove r which the court of a ppeals ha s jurisdiction. In re Salas , 994 S. W

. 2d 422, 422 (Tex. App.–Waco 1999, orig . proce eding ). In the ins tant p ro c e e din g , M ill e r h a s n ot s ho wn that th e wr it o f p ro hib iti on he requ ests re la te s to a pen d in g a

p p e a l o v e r w h ic h th is c o u rt h a s ju r is d ic ti o n
. Co n s e qu e n tl y , h e h a s n o t shown that he is entitled to a writ of pr ohibition.A cco rding t o M i l l er, t he Stat e ackno wl ed ges t he d i scr ep ancy and has asked t he t ri al co urt t o m o d i f y t he 1 “p ro b a tio n p a p e rw o rk ” to re flec t t h e o rig ina l ag re e m e n t. 2 Mandamus re lief is authorized in a cr iminal case only if the re lator establishes that (1) he has no other a dequate leg al re medy and (2) under the fac ts and the law, the ac t soug ht to be compelled is pure ly minist eri al. Sta te

e x r e l. H ill v . Fi ft h Cou rt o f A pp e als , 34 S.W .3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Miller alleg es, and the rec ord re flec ts, that in cause number 05CR16469, the trial cour t orally pronounce d sentenc e a ccording to the terms of a plea a g ree ment wher eby Miller pleade d g uilty

to ag g ravated assault on a public serva

nt in return for

a ten y ear

probate d sentenc e. Howe ver, the jud gm en t entere d in the case provides that the tria l court d ef er re d further

proce eding s without entering an adjudication of guilt and placed Miller on de fer red a djudication fo r t en y ear s. Assuming there are no other re levant fa cts, the discre pancy , as it is d es cribe d by Miller, did not result from judicial r easoningor dete rmination and th er efore is mere ly a cle rica l error

. Alv ar e z v . St ate , 605 S.W .2d 615, 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Thu s , a j u dg ment nunc p r o tu n c is th e a

p p r o p r iate r e me dy to c o r r e c t th e a ll e g e d d is c r e p an c y
. See Ex pa rte Ma dd ing , 7 0 S. W.3 d 1 31 , 1 35 n. 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02). Because this re me dy is

a d e qu a t e , m an d a m u s i s n o ta v a i l a b l e t o c o r r e c t t h e a l l e g e d

d i s c r e p an c y. Miller further

contends that the a lleg ed discr epanc y rende rs the wr itten judgment void a nd there fore it c annot be enfor ced ag ainst him. Consequently , his a rgument cont i n u es , h e is entitled to mandamus re quiring the withdraw al of a ny war rants or detainer s issued in furthera nce of the State’ s at t em pt to revoke his probation in the subjec t c a

u s e nu mb e r
. A s s tate d a b o v e , th e d is c r e p an c y M il le r h a s d e s c r ib e d is a mere cl er i cal e rror

and ca n be cor rec ted by judgme nt nunc pro tunc. See id. A ju d g ment containing an irre g ularity t h at can be corr ecte d by nunc pro tunc entry

is not void. Hug he s v . St ate , 4 93 S.W. 2d

16 6, 17 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 73 ). Because t he jud g me nt i s not void, it can be enf orce d, and Miller i s not entitled mandamus direc ting the withdrawa l of any

war rants or de tainers r elating to the revoc ation of his probation. 1 Miller has not shown that he is entitled to a wr it of p ro h i b i t i on or a w rit of

mand a mus . A c c or din g ly , h is p e tit ion fo r w ri t of pro hi bi ti on and wr it o f m and a mus is denied

.3 

### BR I A N H O Y LE Just i ce
Opinion delivere d September 30, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)