Court Opinion

ID: 4014416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-11 07:17:03.546331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:29.905460
License: Public Domain

$£tte_/*///j£d£                         §   3Jtt4k D'skicL&oLl
tt).tJt/as3?3$
                   RECEIVED IN
                 The Court of Ai
                              Appeals   %      The^6urtofA»p?als—         '
                     Sixth Distrl
                            district               Sixth District
                    JUL 0 8 2016                 WL 0 fl 20IU
    V'         —Texarkana-Texas-\--—J
               Debra Autrey, Clerk             -Texafk-ariarTexas-
                                             Debra K. Autrey, Clerk

f^S/MfJ^Je..

           Mass 44* *'J/9S70J ms/'J#*Z2_
         li&{^&/£/^^^
                                                          -&•
         £&o)t£.a_plt.A_te£eJ.m£0j--)

                                                                    0/7

                             /-c/-7
             44l—^QZa^L^J^iL      J?A^

                                                  WAIL

   /•J JY/ws/jes/h***                     _
  /?/^ d?/s*.

                                           Ssf/&*€/' //S- '

/?&> 72;/?£ tf&d <0?s&/v „j -£wsw-*y ^/W/mr •sep&ws*.
                                              y

                 J -of- 7
A&Js&s ^^y&r ssMtf&A

£$/&j0A6?/ A/fa rtf£A&i/ M?ss ^'ud4*0frA&. 4A _.£k£*A%d&'.
 / Sy J$/& / /Js dtSf//fs/^A&A&^-jA-&.^a&L

       /^x^£»r-. /4/m^'^^Y^
d.fS0fo AS''// //*>     Mk&f- #/ /&/S0/A?/s/j*
                                            ^2$&fs&   d?s?

d* ?vs f£04M.a£
                  &

J-J &/J& .4.

                      3-of-7
      JtA? srV/J7/>fo?s i4ps>/42
      37/? yy?_/€s?ss _A&"tf. -&A A/sA/cAsd/o^jy
tw 0VJ/eA -_^!%> s?s?yA—
Ay/rs.Aa* .,• JA. 4pya*y&- -j&<**- ^«j-..&fM>r*y ^^^^r._/?^^-^^-

 y.Mt//s>f yy a^a&osa a»aa aa ^/4^^a^
 •k /set/, yy^. sAyyy*- <£^yA/y/ yy> „~.,^
 k> #^As /A Am/ y?c*?y k> AA r4As^ /fcA^JL.,

     7% /cs/'&q) J?As?s /As Aiey^auj^Me-'lLA^^yy>t.
Jc/A^a^y pr A/yy <5 ;J%W/, £/t//y A* J& y*/i£s _*j;A/_
*5$ Ay f'W Mei/A (I'm tieJii ful pfa-dfilfs lU of/^se Ms)
..Willi        __A'/CaAo^s^ _cos/Jde^ij/ #f /As tf/t*J As-

M< Ac/ztfat/y / fsyj-vts C&tfy/Aw m'zJ- ./Y*l. ^A*
04£yA'/9* JcMfj Mf y/w &AA?y/>i £?//fc Aa A„SfA/4*ss__.

7A/A a*s #&>* /As aaco /s? /Zwr_ s4?£* &t/£A A. A&f^e*^ '
     #a d/&Jx ?M, &/S /J,s /Lt/, ma/A 404*s&,__
w'J; ^™/f n 0/ Aa^P/AAs 'A- £/?s?sirA , 7MJtd£/ 2/
(Tf/ MM- Ap& H*?i s/aJ^ "ujXm j £;*/ fa/ M£,T „
..-•/./     a /      y  />          ;     ;
/WAA*     A'Ass A^yffi^A^/   AvAsA^A        /A"—~~
                                                **JA

 if.^jL AA Au// JstJys^A^s &.*AAAAAaAm/
\fo«t/ StuMaiA yfj- fAe/. *A .AC yA, ****»&/____
 -Z/b^-AaeA-.Ajj v_£^_^ 0&'tt/s_£A*/y^AAjAAj.
Ta; /A/.. As#0/»v A* A&A &>>A A?A /7o AffA ^A^^A
                         s-*f-7
 A f/ssA.. AA AsfA/j Aw ss? toooA-.
/>/?*-AA—A'- Ar&?s.-AAsr AA-st—A-A/0aa-A—j&£j!-
 /tf/O /t-A Ms/ A jO?C/?AA AAo,AeCJa?e—AAe-.As/0'JL
A AC yAw. ,./y>e#w&A J^ /?A As/y AAAAA
           As&sA. J** /^A^^Au&isALAjL-jiac^AA

    7^ fi/eA'a. AA/*r A? A&AJ**) /s.
      A/* AA, /y^A A j~A 5?&a/ wAs
  AA'** /s mJ/ A-Ms*se4 - y,s AA <*&> ^A-
 AA 4C& MS J- ^sfSasvs- AA s?A> 1/6A
   /J rj* yA» yyts^sA /s .

                &
      /.   6A* ytyyys A/J /A A/J/!t Itwilj} A/j?i£. d.
 2Melton is correctinthat, if the trial court in fact did or does deny his motion forjudgment nuncprotunc, mandamus
 is the appropriate next step. Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695 {Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Ybarra, 149
S.W.3d 147, 14S-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

 3Melton was convicted in trial court cause numbers 20,570 and 20,572; he filed a distinct motion forjudgment nunc
 pro tunc in each of the cases, but has filed a single petition for writ of mandamus. The issues and arguments in the
 two trial causes are identical, so the single petition for mandamus relief is appropriate.
./     652, 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see also Ex parte Harvey, 846 S.W.2d 328, 329 (Tex. Crim.

       App. 1993) (jail time credited by trial court may not exceed time between date of commission of
             "* ~*                                                       m       i   •
         •*•

     • offense,and imposition of sentence). Taking into account the offense and sentence dates from

       Melton's judgments, if it is assumed,he was arrested immediately, on the dates of the offenses, he

       could have served only 162 days in jail for the January 24,2001, offense and only 100 days for the

       March 27, 2001, offense. Obviously, this does not account for any time during which Melton was

       not in custody so that he could commit the March 27 offense, but that calculation is not necessary

     \ for our purposes.
                                                                                                                                           i'
                     According to Melton's petition, prison officials would not give him credit for the 258 days

       as ordered in the trial court's judgments because that number of credited days would pre-date both

       offense dates.         Melton filed an application for habeas corpus relief, and the Texas Court of

      Criminal Appealsfordered the trial court to conduct a hearing)and make findings of fact and
       conclusions of law. Ex parte Melton, Nos. 44,431-02, 44,431-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 14,

     - 2002) (not designated for publication). The^trial;court4s?es1jitm
                                                                                                                                   •>•;:        *

                                                                                                                    ?1*5 73J*s?-

      days,';^1hat*Melt^                                                                     and that nunc pro tunc

     'judgments should be entered to effectuatejhe plea agreement and ensure Melton received the

       The trial court issued one set of findings and conclusions, bearing the two cause numbers ofMelton's two cases. The
      trial court did not distinguish or take into consideration the separate March offense date for Melton's second case.

                              f.jrtvi*a                           ».,•       v

       »,'                                     j   .••   •"   i

                                 w* - -,*,».
<7?cfA/// s&* £Avse_ AtjA /e/AA A&;£A ./ZAfJ_ A_.coA£__MeAe_..A/0
^CouZi- - ^//^jA^^A/l^^/r^/^^/^ ?v//A d *fl^s4> AA /yjxrAe As tmc/
Lor 723 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex.
             Crim. App. 1986); Wilson v. State, 677 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), those judgments are not before usJ
             6Meltonalso complains that fines were assessed inthejudgments, in spite of theplea agreement thatno fine was to be
             assessed in either case. We point out the imposition of $249.25 on each case represents court costs, not fines.

                                                                                                                                     A

                                                                                                                               _* _*a,..*?
 UNIT    COPY                T.D.C.J.-INSTITUTIONAL                  DIVISION            'Q#5£2.0J521(&-995
 IABS2400                              INMATE      TIMESLIPS

 NAME:    MELTON,BRIAN          KEITH                               TDC   NO:    01052738               UNIT:          EA
                                                                      RACE:      W

*PREV    PRJ-REL-DATE:
*PRES    PRJ-REL-DATE:                                        MAX-EXP-DATE                    03    27    2021
*INMATE    STATUS:                                            MAX    TERM:                      •2;0ffi0!blfc0,p;

 FLAT    TIME    CREDITED:             15    02   30         ,&A-|jGfeBEOI^DAVTLg3Wq!JlOBlK?7jfiO;l.
 GOOD    TIME    CREDITED:              5    06   23          TDC    RECEIVE         DATE:         08    16    01
 BONUS    TIME    CREDITED:             0    00   00          GOOD    TIME      LOST:                         940
 WORK    TIME    CREDITED:              0    06   13          WORK    TIME      LOST:                              0
*TOTAL    TIME    CREDITED:            21    04   06

*STATUS    EFFECT       DATE:          04    22   14          JAIL    GOOD      TIME    RECEIVED:             YES
PAROLE    DATA:       SUBMITTED    FOR       BOARD      REVIEW

^MONTHLY    ABSENCE          CALCULATION*               31.0       ABSENCES      FOR    05/16

ANY   ERRORS     IN    THE    NUMBER    OF    DAYS      OF    UNEXCUSED         ABSENCES       MUST       BE
REPORTED    TO    THE    ABSENTEE       TRACKING         COORDINATOR            ON    YOUR    UNIT       NO
LATER    THAN    SIX    MONTHS    FOLLOWING            THE    REPORTED       MONTH.          FAILURE          TO
REPORT    ERRORS       MEANS    AGREEMENT         WITH       THE    REPORTED         ABSENCES.