in Re Robert Huffman, 04-13-00428-CR

In 1998 Robert Huffman pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm and received a suspended state-jail sentence with probation and a fine.
Probation was revoked in 2001; Huffman completed the sentence and was released on parole in 2002.
In 2006 Huffman was convicted by a jury of failing to stop and render aid and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment; he appealed and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
In March 2013 Huffman filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in the 1998 cause, asserting a clerical or intentional alteration of the 1998 judgment that improperly enhanced his 2006 sentence and caused unlawful confinement.
The trial court denied the nunc pro tunc motion, finding the 1998 judgment accurately reflected the court’s action; Huffman sought mandamus relief and requested an evidentiary hearing, a bench warrant to participate, and correction of the judgment.
The Fourth Court of Appeals denied the mandamus petition, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion and noting judicial errors are not corrected by nunc pro tunc; the court also dismissed any appeal from the denial for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1998 judgment contains a clerical error justifying a nunc pro tunc correction	Huffman: the 1998 judgment was clerically altered or contains a clerical error that improperly enhanced the later sentence	Trial court: the judgment accurately reflects the court’s action; record does not support a clerical error	Denied — record does not show a clerical error; no abuse of discretion by trial court
Whether a judicial error in the 1998 judgment can be corrected by nunc pro tunc	Huffman: alternatively, the entry may be erroneous and should be corrected	State/trial court: judicial errors are not correctable by nunc pro tunc; such claims must be raised by other remedies	Denied — judicial error (if any) is not remedied by nunc pro tunc; prior direct-appeal issues were resolved against Huffman
Whether mandamus or an appeal is the proper remedy and whether the appellate court should compel an evidentiary hearing/bench warrant	Huffman: seeks mandamus to force an evidentiary hearing, issuance of a bench warrant so he may participate, and relief on nunc pro tunc motion	Appellate court: mandamus is the correct procedural vehicle for nonappealable denial; but relief requires showing trial-court abuse of discretion, which is absent; appeal from denial is not authorized	Denied — mandamus relief not warranted because no abuse of discretion; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Alvarez v. State, 605 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (nunc pro tunc corrects clerical errors, not judicial decisions)
State v. Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (judicial errors not subject to nunc pro tunc correction)
Castor v. State, 205 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006) (denial of nunc pro tunc motion is not an appealable order)
Huffman v. State, 234 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (affirming 2006 conviction on direct appeal)