Court Opinion

ID: 9388924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-22 10:10:09.788189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:23.431940
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-22-00205-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

CHARLES EDWARD BROWN,                             §      APPEAL FROM THE 369TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                          §      ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Charles Edward Brown appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child
and sexual assault of a child. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

                                          BACKGROUND
       Appellant was indicted for one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one
count of sexual assault of a child. Appellant pleaded “not guilty” to the charges, the matter
proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found Appellant “guilty” on both counts. Appellant elected
to have the trial court assess his punishment. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant
to life imprisonment on both counts. The first page of the trial court’s judgment of conviction,
issued June 22, 2022, incorrectly reflects that the jury, rather than the court, assessed Appellant’s
sentence. This appeal, in which Appellant seeks to modify the judgment to correctly reflect that
the trial court assessed his punishment, followed.
       The State subsequently filed a motion in the trial court for a judgment nunc pro tunc
correcting the error.   The trial court granted the motion, and on March 6, 2023, issued a
judgment nunc pro tunc reflecting that Appellant was sentenced by the court. The Anderson
County District Clerk supplemented the appellate record to include the judgment.
                                   CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT
          After the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction expires, it does not retain general jurisdiction
over a case. See Williams v. State, 603 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). However, the
trial court retains limited jurisdiction to issue a judgment nunc pro tunc correcting a clerical error
in its judgment, when the original judgment does not reflect the judgment that the court actually
rendered. See Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 897–98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); In re
Hancock, 212 S.W.3d 922, 927 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (orig. proceeding). A
trial court cannot issue a nunc pro tunc judgment to correct judicial error or to change the record
to reflect what the court believes should have been done, but only to correct errors that were not
the result of judicial reasoning. Blanton, 369 S.W.3d at 898; Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925,
928 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
          In the case at hand, although the original judgment indicates that the jury assessed
Appellant’s sentence, the record clearly shows that the trial court assessed Appellant’s
punishment. This error is merely clerical in nature and does not change the substance of the
judgment or require judicial reasoning to correct. The State concedes that the trial court’s
original judgment contains the clerical error about which Appellant complains but argues that
Appellant’s appeal is now moot because the trial court subsequently entered a judgment nunc pro
tunc correcting this error. See Blanton, 369 S.W.3d at 897–98. The supplemental clerk’s record
shows that the trial court signed a judgment nunc pro tunc which correctly states that the court
assessed Appellant’s punishment, thereby effecting the relief that Appellant seeks through this
appeal.
          An appeal becomes moot when an appellate court’s judgment can no longer impact an
existing controversy or affect the parties’ rights. Jack v. State, 149 S.W.3d 119, 123 n.10 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2004); Hung Dasian Truong v. State, 580 S.W.3d 203, 207 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.). In most instances, an appellate court cannot act on a moot case.
Pharris v. State, 165 S.W.3d 681, 687–88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Hung Dasian Truong, 580
S.W.3d at 207. Instead, the mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases with actual
controversies between parties. Hung Dasian Truong, 580 S.W.3d at 207; Ex parte Flores, 130
S.W.3d 100, 104–05 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, pet. ref’d). “When there has ceased to be a
controversy between the litigating parties which is due to events occurring after judgment has

                                                   2
been rendered by the trial court, the decision of an appellate court would be a mere academic
exercise and the court may not decide the appeal.” Flores, 130 S.W.3d at 105.
         Because the trial court’s judgment nunc pro tunc corrected the error about which
Appellant complains, we dismiss his appeal as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f); Hung Dasian
Truong, 580 S.W.3d at 211.
                                                                BRIAN HOYLE
                                                                   Justice

Opinion delivered April 20, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                             APRIL 20, 2023

                                         NO. 12-22-00205-CR

                                  CHARLES EDWARD BROWN,
                                          Appellant
                                             V.
                                    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                          Appellee

                                Appeal from the 369th District Court
                    of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 369CR-20-34835)

                    THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being
considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed as moot.
                    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot; and that this decision be certified to
the court below for observance.
                    Brian Hoyle, Justice.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.