Court Opinion

ID: 9892222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-21 06:11:22.911135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.802487
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed October 19, 2023

                                       In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                    __________

                                 No. 11-23-00212-CR
                                     __________

                          IN RE BRYACE T. JONES

                          Original Mandamus Proceeding

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      On September 18, 2023, Relator, Bryace T. Jones, filed this original petition
for writ of mandamus requesting that we order the Honorable Denn Whalen, the
presiding judge of the 70th District Court, to rule on his motion for a nunc pro tunc
judgment. We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.
      In 1986, Relator originally pled no contest to the offense of indecency with a
child. According to his petition, Relator received deferred adjudication; however,
in 1988, he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment in
the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Relator has
since discharged his sentence.
      In Relator’s motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment, he requested the trial court
to “[o]rder a correction of the offense date as supported by the evidence.” In support,
Relator asserted that the State, in a 2002 responsive filing, indicated that the
underlying case involved a delayed outcry by the child. Relator contended that, as
a result of this “admittance,” the trial court should issue a nunc pro tunc judgment
“to reflect [an] alleged offense date of July 1981 or earlier.” Relator asked the trial
court to require the State to produce a certified copy of the State’s responsive filing
that was filed on September 5, 2022, “as further proof that a Judgment Nunc Pro
Tunc should issue.”
      On October 10, 2023, the district clerk filed in this court Judge Whalen’s order
denying Relator’s motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment. By ruling on the motion,
Judge Whalen has provided Relator the relief he seeks from our court in his
mandamus petition, and his petition is now moot. See In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d
528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Johnson, 599 S.W.3d 311,
312 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, orig. proceeding). We lack jurisdiction to decide a
moot controversy. Johnson, 599 S.W.3d at 311–12.
      Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

                                               W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
                                               JUSTICE

October 19, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                          2