Court Opinion

ID: 9942047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 14:11:58.108299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:37.012883
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                                 OPINION

                                         No. 04-22-00238-CR

                                     Juan Roberto RODRIGUEZ,
                                              Appellant

                                                   v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                     From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 1990CR1294
                          Honorable Christine Del Prado, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 14, 2024

AFFIRMED

           On July 23, 1990, Appellant Juan Roberto Rodriguez pleaded guilty to arson as a habitual

offender and was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. In that time, Rodriguez has filed many

pleas for time credit and applications for writ of habeas corpus, all of which have been denied or

dismissed. On April 4, 2022, the trial court entered a judgment nunc pro tunc, entering an

additional two months of jail time credit from 1990. This appeal followed. We affirm the trial

court’s judgment.
                                                                                       04-22-00238-CR

                                            BACKGROUND

       On July 23, 1990, Rodriguez pleaded guilty to felony arson as a habitual offender and was

sentenced to 25 years in prison.

       During his period of incarceration, Rodriguez was intermittently released on parole. The

time spent while out on parole, also referred to as “street time” may or may not be credited against

an inmate’s sentence. In Rodriguez’s case, he was ineligible for street time credit because of his

criminal history.

       In his efforts to obtain street time credit, Rodriguez wrote many pleas and inquiries,

including several applications for writs of habeas corpus that were dismissed by the Texas Court

of Criminal Appeals.

       In 2019, Rodriguez was again released on parole. While out on parole, he committed the

offense of aggravated assault against a public servant. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was

sentenced to 20 years’ confinement.

       Back in custody, Rodriguez continued to file applications for writs of habeas corpus. The

Court of Criminal Appeals issued an abuse of writ order, stating that the court would “not consider

the merits of his [future] applications [for writs of habeas corpus] unless he shows that the factual

or legal basis of his grounds was unavailable in a previously filed application.” Nevertheless,

Rodriguez continued to file applications, as well as letters and pleadings in the trial court.

       On April 4, 2022, the trial court issued a judgment nunc pro tunc correcting an old

presentencing jail time credit from 1990.

       On April 13, 2022, Rodriguez filed a notice of appeal, stating that the trial court’s

correction failed to consider time he spent in custody in 1989. His brief, however, expanded the

scope of his appeal to include the issue of his street time credit and the calculation of his 20-year

                                                 -2-
                                                                                     04-22-00238-CR

sentence for aggravated assault against a public servant. We now address Rodriguez’s appeal of

the trial court’s April 4, 2022 judgment nunc pro tunc.

                                  JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC

A.     Parties’ Arguments

       Rodriguez claims that he is entitled to more time credit than the trial court’s judgment nunc

pro tunc accounted for because 1) his 20-year sentence for aggravated assault on a public servant

was set to run concurrently with his 25-year sentence for arson, meaning that they should be

calculated to start and end on the same dates, beginning with the earliest start date; and 2) he has

served a net total of 24 years in prison and should already be paroled in both cases. He believes

he has effectively served the full term of both sentences. The State disputes Rodriguez’s argument

that he should receive any credit against his sentence for assault based on time he spent in prison

prior to his commission of that offense.

B.     Standard of Review/ Law

       We review a judgment nunc pro tunc for its conformity to its purpose, i.e., whether it

remedies a clerical error “when there is a discrepancy between the judgment as pronounced in

court and the judgment reflected in the record.” Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2012) (citing Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Alvarez v. State,

605 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)).

       Whether an error is clerical or judicial depends on whether its remedy required judicial

reasoning. Id. (citing Ex parte Poe, 751 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)). A judgment

nunc pro tunc is judicial if it, for example, “modifies, changes, or alters the original judgment

pronounced in court, or has the effect of making a new order.” Id. (citing Ex parte Dickerson, 702

S.W.2d 657, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)).

                                                -3-
                                                                                       04-22-00238-CR

          The corrections of a proper judgment nunc pro tunc “must reflect the judgment that was

actually rendered but that for some reason was not properly entered into the record at the time of

the judgment.” Id. (citing Jones v. State, 795 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)); accord

In re Hancock, 212 S.W.3d 922, 928 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.).

C.        Analysis

          Rodriguez’s argument reaches beyond the allowable scope of a judgment nunc pro tunc

appeal. See id. Rather than arguing that the trial court’s judgment was clerically incorrect,

Rodriguez has argued instead for the application of judicial reasoning to his sentences in both this

case and his separate assault case. Contra id. The proper vehicle for Rodriguez’s argument would

be an application for a writ of habeas corpus, see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, though

the Court of Criminal Appeals has cautioned Rodriguez against submitting any previously resolved

habeas issues. Because we have been presented with no argument or evidence that the trial court’s

judgment was clerically incorrect, we overrule Rodriguez’s sole issue. See Blanton, 369 S.W.3d

at 898.

                                             CONCLUSION

          Rodriguez failed to show that the trial court erred in its entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc

that documented two additional months of presentencing jail credit from 1990. The trial court’s

judgment is affirmed.

                                                    Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Publish

                                                  -4-