Court Opinion

ID: 9774987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:40:21.539246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:18.748182
License: Public Domain

MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Judge.
Relator’s motion for rehearing is predicated upon the premise that the Lamb County judgment, which was used to enhance the punishment in the Wichita County life sentence conviction, is void and that our holding to the contrary is in direct conflict with Ex Parte Traxler, 147 Texas Cr. R. 661, 184 S.W. 2d 286; Ex Parte East, 154 Texas Cr. R. 123, 225 S.W. 2d 833; and Ex Parte Clubb, 155 Texas Cr. R. 284, 234 S.W. 2d 874.
The distinction, which appellant does not appear to accept, is pointed out in Ex Parte Stansbury, 155 Texas Cr. R. 73, 231 S.W. 2d 431, and in Ex Parte Hannan, 155 Texas Cr. R. 10, 228 S.W. 2d 864.
In Ex Parte Hannen we said:
“In Ex Parte East, Texas Cr. App., 225 S.W. 2d 833, and the cases there cited, as well as other later cases, the judgment was held void for want of a definite punishment having been in fact assessed.
“But if in fact, a definite punishment was assessed and the entry of a judgment showing otherwise was by a clerical error, the judgment may be corrected by the court which rendered it under its inherent powers, so as to make the record speak the truth, by nunc pro tunc entry of the judgment as same was actually rendered in the case when tried.”
*115“If, in fact, no definite punishment was assessed by the judge in the judgment pronounced by him, or by a separate order, and the judgment actually pronounced is as shown by such certified copies, then they are insufficient to support the sentence pronounced thereon. See Ex Parte East, Texas Cr. App., 225 S.W. 2d 833; Ex Parte Traxler, 147 Texas Cr. R. 661, 184 S.W. 2d 286; and Edwards v. State, Texas Cr. App., 219 S.W. 2d 1022.
“On the other hand, if in fact a definite punishment was assessed against relator, and the recitations in the judgments as entered are the result of a clerical error, or if there be clerical error in the copies furnished to the Texas Prison System in this regard, then such clerical errors or omissions may be corrected by nunc pro tunc entry in the manner provided by law so as to make the records speak the truth.
“And in such event the irregularities would not affect the validity of the convictions.”
See also Ex Parte Jones, 230 S.W. 2d 809; Ex parte Kemp, 154 Texas Cr. R. 633, 230 S.W. 2d 232.
The Lamb County sentence has long since been served. Relator is not held under that conviction, for which reason alone we did not follow the procedure set out in the opinion in Ex parte Stansbury, supra, and ascertain the true facts as to the punishment actually assessed.
We remain convinced that the Wichita County conviction is not shown to be void nor excessive.
Relator’s motion for rehearing is overruled.