in Re: Bobby Gene Wofford, 05-15-01279-CV

Relator Bobby Gene Wofford sought a judgment nunc pro tunc in the trial court to correct jail time credit reflected in his criminal judgment.
The trial court did not grant or rule on the nunc pro tunc motion, prompting Wofford to file a petition for writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas.
Generally, inaccuracies in criminal judgments concerning jail-time credit are corrected by a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc; if the trial court fails to act, mandamus to a court of appeals may be appropriate (Ex parte Ybarra).
However, claims that a prisoner is being held beyond the length of the assessed sentence are challenges to the lawfulness of confinement and must be pursued by an Article 11.07 writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Court of Appeals concluded Wofford’s petition actually asserted illegal confinement (post-conviction habeas) rather than a mere ministerial error subject to mandamus, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court’s failure to grant a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is reviewable by mandamus in the court of appeals	Wofford argued the trial court had a ministerial duty to correct the judgment to reflect proper jail-time credit and that mandamus is appropriate when the trial court fails to act	The State/Respondent contended the complaint actually alleged Wofford was being held beyond his sentence and thus is a habeas (Article 11.07) matter outside the court of appeals’ jurisdiction	Court dismissed: although nunc pro tunc motions normally can be enforced by mandamus, Wofford’s petition alleged illegal post-conviction confinement requiring habeas in the Court of Criminal Appeals, so this court lacked jurisdiction

Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (mandamus proper when trial court refuses to enter nunc pro tunc correction of judgment)
Ex parte Pena, 71 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (nunc pro tunc is the ordinary means to correct judgment credit errors)
Ex parte Patterson, 141 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 1940) (habeas corpus is not the remedy for mere irregularities correctable by nunc pro tunc)
Ex parte Beeler, 53 S.W. 857 (Tex. Crim. App. 1899) (same principle regarding correction of judgments)
Ex parte Deeringer, 210 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (claims of being held beyond sentence must be raised in an Article 11.07 habeas application)
Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (only Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over final post-conviction felony habeas proceedings)
Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (limited circumstances where courts of appeals have concurrent mandamus jurisdiction, but not for final post-conviction habeas)
In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (Article 11.07 contemplates only the convicting court and Court of Criminal Appeals, not courts of appeals)