Rene Adolpho Guzman v. State
05-16-01110-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Relator Rene Adolpho Guzman sought a writ of mandamus from the Dallas Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to rule on a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc challenging two of three life sentences as improperly consecutive.
- The mandamus petition was filed pro se and originally spanned three appellate cause numbers; a prior opinion failed to caption two of them, prompting this corrected opinion disposing of the remaining proceedings.
- Relator contends the trial court should correct the judgment nunc pro tunc to set aside two life sentences on the basis they were not authorized by law.
- The trial court had not ruled on the nunc pro tunc motion when relator petitioned the appellate court for mandamus.
- The court analyzed whether mandamus was available (no adequate remedy and a ministerial duty to act) and whether the trial court had authority to grant the relief requested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus can compel the trial court to rule on the nunc pro tunc motion | Guzman: mandamus needed because trial court failed to rule on a properly filed motion; court has a ministerial duty to rule | Respondent: trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, so no ministerial duty to rule | Denied: mandamus not available because the trial court lacked jurisdiction and therefore no ministerial duty to rule |
| Whether a nunc pro tunc may be used to remove or alter consecutive life sentences | Guzman: nunc pro tunc should correct the judgment to eliminate unauthorized consecutive sentences | Respondent: changing consecutive sentences is a judicial/substantive error, not a clerical one — not correctable by nunc pro tunc | Held: nunc pro tunc cannot be used to correct judicial errors like sentence cumulation; relief sought is substantive and not proper via nunc pro tunc |
| Whether the motion was "properly filed" for mandamus purposes when the trial court lacks authority to grant the relief | Guzman: motion is properly filed and thus triggers a duty to rule | Respondent: because the motion seeks relief the court has no jurisdiction to grant, it is not properly filed and no duty exists | Held: motion was not properly filed insofar as it sought relief the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant; thus mandamus inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Allen, 462 S.W.3d 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (mandamus standard in criminal cases; relator must show no adequate remedy and a ministerial duty)
- State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court has duty to rule on properly filed, timely motions)
- State v. Johnson, 821 S.W.2d 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (a court may act only when authorized by constitution, statute, common law, or inherent power)
- State v. Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (nunc pro tunc corrects clerical errors, not judicial errors)
- Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Moore, 51 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001) (distinguishes clerical error from judicial error in judgments)
- Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (improper cumulation of sentences is a due-process/judicial error not correctable by nunc pro tunc)
- Ex parte Williams, 561 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (only Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief)
Accordingly, the Court denied Guzman’s petition for writ of mandamus because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the substantive relief sought via nunc pro tunc, so there was no ministerial duty to rule.