Court Opinion

ID: 9648120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:03:48.137519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:56.581494
License: Public Domain

*585appellant’s motion for rehearing
DICE, Judge
Appellant insists that the record which was before us on original submission incorrectly reflected that he entered a plea of guilty in the cause and that the record has been corrected to show that the plea which was entered by him was that of “Not Guilty.”
By supplemental transcript it is shown that since the delivery of our original opinion, the trial court, on motion of the appellant, has ordered that a corrected judgment be entered nunc pro tunc which judgment recites that appellant entered a plea of not guilty in the cause.
The trial court was without authority to order entry of the corrected judgment nunc pro tunc during the pendency of the appeal. Art. 772, V.A.C.C.P.; Griggs v. State, 163 Tex. Cr. R. 378, 292 S.W. 2d 126; Le Bove v. State, 146 Tex. Cr. R. 157, 172 S.W. 2d 342; Allen v. State, 124 Tex. Cr. R. 642, 65 S.W. 2d 311 and Acuff v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 71, 262 S.W. 761. Until this appeal has become final, the trial court is without authority to correct the judgment and minutes of the court which forms a part of the record on appeal. Palacio v. State, 164 Tex. Cr. R. 18, 296 S.W. 2d 550 and Bradshaw v. State, 331 S.W. 2d 52. Under the authorities cited the nunc pro tunc judgment entered in the cause will not be considered.
Remaining convinced that a proper disposition was made of the case in our opinion on original submission, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.