Court Opinion

ID: 2919887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 00:49:24.2427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:33.834270
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-99-531-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________

OCTAVIO ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ,	Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,	Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 93rd District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Rodriguez, and Seerden(1)
Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

	Octavio Orlando Rodriguez, appellant, appeals from a conviction
of aggravated robbery with a habitual felony offender enhancement.  In
his sole issue, he complains the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter
judgment because there was no valid indictment.  We affirm.

	We previously abated and remanded this cause for the trial court
to determine whether entry of a written order purporting to grant
appellant's motion to quash the indictment was clerical error.(2)  The trial
court has since held a hearing, concluded the written order was clerical
error, and entered a judgment nunc pro tunc correcting the same.    

	Because the trial court found that its order ostensibly granting the
motion to quash was clerical error, and because the judgment nunc pro
tunc corrects the order so that it reflects the court denied the motion to
quash, appellant's argument that the court was without jurisdiction to
enter judgment because it had quashed the indictment fails.  See Smith
v. State, 801 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1991, no pet.) (power
of court to correct clerical error exists at any time) (citing Knox v. Long,
152 Tex. 291, 294-98, 257 S.W.2d 289, 291-93 (1953)); State v. Evans,
817 S.W.2d 807, 809 (Tex. App.­Waco [Panel Op.] 1980), rev'd on
other grounds, 843 S.W.2d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (citing Alverez
v. State, 605 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980)). 
Appellant's sole issue is overruled.

	The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

								NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

								Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 26th day of April, 2001.

1.   Senior Justice Robert J. Seerden assigned to this Court by the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code
Ann. § 74.003 (Vernon 1998).
2. See Rodriguez v. State, No. 13-99-531-CV, 2001Tex. App. Lexis
904, at *1 (Corpus Christi, February 8, 2001) (order abating and
remanding for hearing).