506 S.W.3d 1
Tex. Crim. App.2015Background
- Appellant Guthrie-Nail pled guilty to conspiracy to commit capital murder as alleged in Count II in exchange for a 50-year sentence.
- Original judgment listed ‘Findings on Deadly Weapon’ as N/A; no oral deadly-weapon finding was announced at sentencing.
- Over two months later, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc judgment changing the finding to ‘Yes, a Firearm’ and added a finding Guthrie-Nail used or knew a deadly weapon would be used.
- Appellant challenged the nunc pro tunc judgment on grounds of (i) clerical vs judicial error, (ii) lack of record support for personal use of a deadly weapon, and (iii) denial of notice prior to the nunc pro tunc entry.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the nunc pro tunc judgment, finding sufficient notice and that the record supported a deadly-weapon finding.
- The majority remanded for a nunc pro tunc hearing to resolve whether the trial judge actually made a deadly-weapon finding before signing the written judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand is required to determine if a deadly-weapon finding was made | State contends remand is useless as record shows proper finding | Guthrie-Nail argues record is inconclusive about any finding | Remand necessary to resolve factual issue |
| Whether a deadly-weapon finding can be entered for conspiracy and whether Hooks gives discretion to withhold | State relies on authority permitting such findings | Guthrie-Nail argues no discretion to withhold and that finding should not be entered in conspiracy | Court must remand to resolve discretionary question; entry may be mandatory if shown |
| Whether the nunc pro tunc entry was a clerical correction or a judicial correction | State treats nunc pro tunc as proper correction of record | Guthrie-Nail argues it was an improper alteration of judgment | Remand appropriate to determine nature of correction |
| Whether due process required notice before nunc pro tunc entry | State asserts no due process issue given record | Guthrie-Nail contends notice was lacking | Remand preferable to assess notice and procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooks v. State, 860 S.W.2d 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (discussed entry vs making of deadly-weapon finding; discretion issue not resolved)
- Ex parte Poe, 751 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (deadly-weapon finding must be entered; nunc pro tunc appropriate to reflect factual finding)
- Ex parte Huskins, 176 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (admonishments and guilty plea can establish the finding of a deadly weapon; entry required)
- Crumpton v. State, 301 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (extends theory that deadly weapon finding can be imposed via party liability in certain conspiratorial contexts)
- Polk v. State, 693 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (indictment-specific findings may create de facto deadly-weapon finding when charged and convicted as charged)
- Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (remand for nunc pro tunc when correction would be useless)