Presley, Ronald
PD-0876-15
| Tex. App. | Jul 15, 2015Background
- Petitioner pled guilty to Possession of a Prohibited Item in a Correctional Facility; sentence 4 years to run consecutively to a Dallas County sentence.
- Trial court finalized February 14, 2014 judgment with a specific cumulation order.
- State later sought nunc pro tunc relief claiming the cumulation term was mis-stated.
- June 6, 2014 nunc pro tunc judgment substituted a different prior conviction for cumulation (Aggravated Assault).
- Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding Article 42.08(b) allows the court to rely on TDCJ knowledge for cumulation and modified the order accordingly.
- Petitioner challenged the nunc pro tunc process as improper and argued it altered a term of the plea agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 42.08(b) delegation is improper. | Presley argues the appellate court improperly delegated judicial power to TDCJ. | State contends 42.08(b) permits reliance on TDCJ knowledge for cumulation. | Partially sustained; clerical error found, but delegation issue not upheld as controlling. |
| Whether the nunc pro tunc judgment improperly changed judicial reasoning. | Presley asserts nunc pro tunc altered the decretal portion based on judicial reasoning. | State asserts nunc pro tunc corrects clerical errors only. | Sustained to the extent of clerical error; modification needed to reflect oral pronouncement. |
| Whether the State circumvented direct appellate review via nunc pro tunc. | State circumvented direct appeal by nunc pro tunc manipulation. | nunc pro tunc was proper for clerical corrections. | Overruled; error deemed clerical, not a bypass of direct appeal. |
| Whether the State is estopped from seeking nunc pro tunc relief that changes plea terms. | State benefitted from plea but seeks to alter terms post hoc. | Plea terms should be enforceable as contracted. | Overruled; modification consistent with Article 42.08(b) and plea terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (42.08(b) relies on TDCJ knowledge; no need for identical prior conviction proof for cumulation)
- Basden v. State, 897 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (interprets 42.08(b) to deter recidivism and shows original sentence definition)
- Coleman v. State, 898 S.W.2d 327 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1993) (interprets original sentence meaning for 42.08(b) and deterrence)
- Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (distinguishes clerical vs. judicial errors in judgments nunc pro tunc)
- Ex parte Poe, 751 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (limits nunc pro tunc to reflecting actual judgment, not new orders)
- State v. Gobel, 988 S.W.2d 852 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1999) (nunc pro tunc not used to create new substantive changes)
- Rhodes v. State, 240 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (estoppel in plea agreements where benefits conferred)
- Smith v. State, 15 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000) (nunc pro tunc cannot transpose judicial error into clerical error)