Court Opinion

ID: 4042200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 23:01:03.953571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:50:18.556156
License: Public Domain

In The

                              Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                          ____________________
                             NO. 09-15-00335-CR
                          ____________________

                        IN RE MICHAEL HANCOCK
_________________________________________________________________________

                              Original Proceeding
                 75th District Court of Liberty County, Texas
                     Trial Cause Nos. CR28749, CR28750
_________________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Michael Hancock complains that the

trial court signed judgments nunc pro tunc without Hancock being personally

present for the hearing, 1 and that the trial court subsequently failed to grant

Hancock’s request that a bench warrant issue so that his thumbprint can be added

to the judgments nunc pro tunc in a new proceeding conducted in open court with

counsel and the defendant present. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 38.33

(West 2005); 42.01, § 1(23) (West Supp. 2014); but see Porter v. State, 757

      1
       Hancock’s trial counsel represented him in the proceedings on the entry of
the judgments nunc pro tunc.
                                       1
S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1988, no pet.) (non-compliance with

article 42.01 does not render the conviction void). Hancock contends the trial

court’s decision to reduce the assessment of attorney’s fees in the judgments

reflected a judicial error not correctable through judgments nunc pro tunc.

      “Before any unfavorable nunc pro tunc orders are entered the person

convicted should be given an opportunity to be present for the hearing, represented

by counsel, in order to accord him due process of law.” Shaw v. State, 539 S.W.2d
887, 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). Hancock has not shown that the judgments nunc

pro tunc were unfavorable to him. See id. Furthermore, an appellate court need not

order a trial court to conduct a hearing to reconsider entry of an ex parte but

otherwise properly entered judgment nunc pro tunc. Homan v. Hughes, 708
S.W.2d 449, 454-55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). We deny mandamus relief.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                               PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 8, 2015
Opinion Delivered September 9, 2015
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

                                         2