Guthrie-Nail v. State, 543 S.W.3d 225

Appellant Vera Guthrie-Nail pled guilty to conspiracy to commit capital murder; original judgment entered September 12, 2012 (no deadly-weapon finding).
Trial court issued a nunc pro tunc judgment on December 4, 2012, changing the deadly-weapon entry to “Yes, a Firearm,” without notice or a hearing.
The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed that nunc pro tunc judgment on January 8, 2014; this Court reversed on September 16, 2015, holding the nunc pro tunc violated due process and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand the trial court held the required hearing on December 16, 2016; the judge orally stated he intended at the plea to make an affirmative deadly-weapon finding but did not enter a new written nunc pro tunc judgment.
Appellant appealed the December 16, 2016 ruling; the Fifth Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no appealable order had been entered. The State agreed Appellant should be allowed review, and Guthrie-Nail sought discretionary review.
The Court held the court of appeals’ dismissal was proper: the original December 4, 2012 nunc pro tunc was rendered void by this Court’s earlier reversal, and without a new written nunc pro tunc the December 16, 2016 oral ruling/docket entry was not an appealable order.

Issue	Guthrie-Nail's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals erred in dismissing Guthrie-Nail’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction	The December 4, 2012 nunc pro tunc should be reviewable and the dismissal prevented appellate review	The State agreed Guthrie-Nail is entitled to appellate review of the nunc pro tunc but ultimately joined reversal in earlier proceedings	Dismissal was proper because the Court’s prior reversal voided the 2012 nunc pro tunc; no new appealable order existed after the 2016 hearing
Whether an oral ratification and docket entry from the December 16, 2016 hearing constituted an appealable nunc pro tunc judgment	Oral statements and docket entry effectively ratified the earlier nunc pro tunc and should be treated as an appealable correction	The State conceded the need for review generally but the court argued that appealability requires an entered written order	Held that oral ratification and docket entry are insufficient; a new written nunc pro tunc must be entered to create an appealable order

Shaw v. State, 539 S.W.2d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (due-process requirement before entering unfavorable nunc pro tunc judgments)
Guthrie-Nail v. State, 506 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (reversal of appellate affirmance because nunc pro tunc issued without notice/hearing)
Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (nunc pro tunc judgments are appealable orders)
Ex parte Granger, 850 S.W.2d 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs subsequent stages after decisions by a court of last resort)
Granviel v. State, 723 S.W.2d 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (law-of-the-case principles)
Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (procedural points on nunc pro tunc and appealability)