In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-13-00173-CR NO. 09-13-00174-CR NO. 09-13-00175-CR _________________
CHARLES MURRAY JR. A/K/A CHARLES MURRAY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 09-07250, 09-07323, 09-07326 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Charles Murray Jr.1 appeals from the revocation of his deferred
adjudication community supervision and imposition of sentence in three separate
cases. In each case, Murray challenges the trial court’s imposition of a $500 fine
in the written judgment, complaining that the trial court failed to orally pronounce
the fine as part of his sentence at the revocation hearing. The State concedes that
1 Charles Murray Jr. is also known as Charles Murray.
1 the inclusion of the fine in the original written judgments constituted error, but
contends that such error was corrected by judgments nunc pro tunc subsequently
entered by the trial court in each case. We affirm the trial court’s original
judgments as modified.
In cause number 09-07250, Murray pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of
a firearm by a felon, a third degree felony. In cause number 09-07323, Murray
pleaded guilty to possession of phencyclidine (PCP), a second degree felony, and
in cause number 09-07326, Murray pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine, a
second degree felony. In each case, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to
find Murray guilty, deferred further proceedings, placed Murray on community
supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $500.
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Murray’s unadjudicated
community supervision in all three cases. Thereafter, the trial court held a hearing
on the State’s motion to revoke, during which Murray pleaded “true” to two
violations of the conditions of his community supervision in each case. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Murray violated the terms of
his community supervision in all three cases. In cause number 09-07250, the trial
court found Murray guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and orally
pronounced punishment at ten years’ confinement. In cause number 09-07323, the
2 trial court found Murray guilty of possession of a controlled substance, namely
PCP and orally pronounced punishment at thirteen years’ confinement. In cause
number 09-07326, the trial court found Murray guilty of possession of a controlled
substance, namely cocaine and orally pronounced punishment at thirteen years’
confinement.
In his sole issue on appeal in each case, Murray contends the trial court erred
by including a $500 fine in its written judgment when the court did not orally
pronounce the fine at the time of sentencing during the revocation hearing. Before
considering the merits of Murray’s appeal, however, we will first consider whether
the trial court corrected any alleged error in the original judgments by subsequently
entering judgments nunc pro tunc in each case to remove the references to the
assessment of the $500 fine.
The record reflects that Murray filed a notice of appeal in all three cases on
April 9, 2013. The reporter’s record was filed in each case on April 15, 2013, and
the clerk’s record was filed in each case on May 16, 2013. On October 22, 2013—
approximately one week after Murray filed his opening brief complaining of the
inclusion of the $500 fine in the written judgments—the State filed a motion to
enter judgment nunc pro tunc in each case to eliminate the references in the
original judgments to the assessment of the $500 fine. The trial court granted the
3 State’s motions and entered a judgment nunc pro tunc in each case. On December
13, 2013, the district clerk’s office filed a supplemental clerk’s record in each case
containing a copy of the judgments nunc pro tunc. The judgments nunc pro tunc,
signed by the trial court in each case on October 25, 2013, eliminate the references
contained in the original judgments to the assessment of the $500 fine.2 On appeal,
the State concedes that the inclusion of the fine in the original judgments was
improper, but argues that any error was corrected by the trial court’s entry of the
judgments nunc pro tunc.
A judgment nunc pro tunc permits a trial court to correct the record when
there is a discrepancy between the judgment as pronounced in court and the
judgment reflected in the record. Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 897-98 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2012); see also Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007). Corrections to the record made in a judgment nunc pro tunc are limited to
clerical errors and are not appropriate for errors involving judicial reasoning.
Blanton, 369 S.W.3d at 898.
2 The first page of the judgment nunc pro tunc in cause number 09-07323 states that it was signed on October 25, 2013. However, the second page of the judgment states that it was “[s]igned and entered on April 8, 2013.” Despite this apparent conflict, a review of other documents contained in the record establishes that the April 8, 2013 date is a clerical error and that such judgment was, in fact, signed by the trial court on October 25, 2013.
4 It is axiomatic, however, that a trial court must have jurisdiction before it
may act on a case; that is, it must have the power to hear and determine the case.
See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Yarbrough v.
State, 703 S.W.2d 645, 648 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Rule 23.1 of the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure vests a trial court with the authority to correct clerical
mistakes or errors in a judgment or order through entry of a judgment nunc pro
tunc so long as the defendant has not appealed.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 23.1; State v.
Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306, 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (interpreting former Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 36, predecessor to current Rule 23.1). Further, Rule
25.2(g) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “[o]nce the record has
been filed in the appellate court, all further proceedings in the trial court—except
as provided otherwise by law or by these rules—will be suspended until the trial
court receives the appellate-court mandate.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(g). Thus, absent
certain exceptions not relevant here, once a defendant has filed a notice of appeal
and the record has been filed with the appellate court, the trial court lacks authority
to act on the case until it receives the appellate court’s mandate. See id.; Green v.
3 Rule 23.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides: “[u]nless the trial court has granted a new trial or arrested the judgment, or unless the defendant has appealed, a failure to render judgment and pronounce sentence may be corrected at any time by the court’s doing so.” Tex. R. App. P. 23.1.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-13-00173-CR NO. 09-13-00174-CR NO. 09-13-00175-CR _________________
CHARLES MURRAY JR. A/K/A CHARLES MURRAY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 09-07250, 09-07323, 09-07326 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Charles Murray Jr.1 appeals from the revocation of his deferred
adjudication community supervision and imposition of sentence in three separate
cases. In each case, Murray challenges the trial court’s imposition of a $500 fine
in the written judgment, complaining that the trial court failed to orally pronounce
the fine as part of his sentence at the revocation hearing. The State concedes that
1 Charles Murray Jr. is also known as Charles Murray.
1 the inclusion of the fine in the original written judgments constituted error, but
contends that such error was corrected by judgments nunc pro tunc subsequently
entered by the trial court in each case. We affirm the trial court’s original
judgments as modified.
In cause number 09-07250, Murray pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of
a firearm by a felon, a third degree felony. In cause number 09-07323, Murray
pleaded guilty to possession of phencyclidine (PCP), a second degree felony, and
in cause number 09-07326, Murray pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine, a
second degree felony. In each case, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to
find Murray guilty, deferred further proceedings, placed Murray on community
supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $500.
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Murray’s unadjudicated
community supervision in all three cases. Thereafter, the trial court held a hearing
on the State’s motion to revoke, during which Murray pleaded “true” to two
violations of the conditions of his community supervision in each case. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Murray violated the terms of
his community supervision in all three cases. In cause number 09-07250, the trial
court found Murray guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and orally
pronounced punishment at ten years’ confinement. In cause number 09-07323, the
2 trial court found Murray guilty of possession of a controlled substance, namely
PCP and orally pronounced punishment at thirteen years’ confinement. In cause
number 09-07326, the trial court found Murray guilty of possession of a controlled
substance, namely cocaine and orally pronounced punishment at thirteen years’
confinement.
In his sole issue on appeal in each case, Murray contends the trial court erred
by including a $500 fine in its written judgment when the court did not orally
pronounce the fine at the time of sentencing during the revocation hearing. Before
considering the merits of Murray’s appeal, however, we will first consider whether
the trial court corrected any alleged error in the original judgments by subsequently
entering judgments nunc pro tunc in each case to remove the references to the
assessment of the $500 fine.
The record reflects that Murray filed a notice of appeal in all three cases on
April 9, 2013. The reporter’s record was filed in each case on April 15, 2013, and
the clerk’s record was filed in each case on May 16, 2013. On October 22, 2013—
approximately one week after Murray filed his opening brief complaining of the
inclusion of the $500 fine in the written judgments—the State filed a motion to
enter judgment nunc pro tunc in each case to eliminate the references in the
original judgments to the assessment of the $500 fine. The trial court granted the
3 State’s motions and entered a judgment nunc pro tunc in each case. On December
13, 2013, the district clerk’s office filed a supplemental clerk’s record in each case
containing a copy of the judgments nunc pro tunc. The judgments nunc pro tunc,
signed by the trial court in each case on October 25, 2013, eliminate the references
contained in the original judgments to the assessment of the $500 fine.2 On appeal,
the State concedes that the inclusion of the fine in the original judgments was
improper, but argues that any error was corrected by the trial court’s entry of the
judgments nunc pro tunc.
A judgment nunc pro tunc permits a trial court to correct the record when
there is a discrepancy between the judgment as pronounced in court and the
judgment reflected in the record. Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 897-98 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2012); see also Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007). Corrections to the record made in a judgment nunc pro tunc are limited to
clerical errors and are not appropriate for errors involving judicial reasoning.
Blanton, 369 S.W.3d at 898.
2 The first page of the judgment nunc pro tunc in cause number 09-07323 states that it was signed on October 25, 2013. However, the second page of the judgment states that it was “[s]igned and entered on April 8, 2013.” Despite this apparent conflict, a review of other documents contained in the record establishes that the April 8, 2013 date is a clerical error and that such judgment was, in fact, signed by the trial court on October 25, 2013.
4 It is axiomatic, however, that a trial court must have jurisdiction before it
may act on a case; that is, it must have the power to hear and determine the case.
See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Yarbrough v.
State, 703 S.W.2d 645, 648 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Rule 23.1 of the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure vests a trial court with the authority to correct clerical
mistakes or errors in a judgment or order through entry of a judgment nunc pro
tunc so long as the defendant has not appealed.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 23.1; State v.
Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306, 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (interpreting former Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 36, predecessor to current Rule 23.1). Further, Rule
25.2(g) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “[o]nce the record has
been filed in the appellate court, all further proceedings in the trial court—except
as provided otherwise by law or by these rules—will be suspended until the trial
court receives the appellate-court mandate.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(g). Thus, absent
certain exceptions not relevant here, once a defendant has filed a notice of appeal
and the record has been filed with the appellate court, the trial court lacks authority
to act on the case until it receives the appellate court’s mandate. See id.; Green v.
3 Rule 23.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides: “[u]nless the trial court has granted a new trial or arrested the judgment, or unless the defendant has appealed, a failure to render judgment and pronounce sentence may be corrected at any time by the court’s doing so.” Tex. R. App. P. 23.1.
5 State, 906 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (interpreting former Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(b)(2), predecessor to current Rule 25.2). The trial
court generally may not render a judgment nunc pro tunc after the appellate record
is filed in the court of appeals without direction from the appellate court. See Tex.
R. App. P. 25.2(g), 44.4; see also Green, 906 S.W.2d at 939.
Here, the appellate record in each case had already been filed in this Court at
the time the trial court signed the judgments nunc pro tunc on October 25, 2013.
The State, conceding error, attempted to correct the error by initiating a motion for
judgment nunc pro tunc but, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to sign the
judgments nunc pro tunc at that time. See Tex. R. App. P. 23.1, 25.2(g); see also
Green, 906 S.W.2d at 939. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sign the
judgments nunc pro tunc after the appellate record was filed, we must disregard the
judgments nunc pro tunc contained in the supplemental clerk’s records. See Green,
906 S.W.2d at 939. Instead, we review the original judgments, signed by the trial
court on April 8, 2013, adjudicating Murray’s guilt and imposing sentence in each
case.
In these cases, the first page of the trial court’s original judgment does not
list a fine. However, the second page of the original judgment in these cases states
that the trial court imposed a fine of $500 upon ordering Murray placed on
6 community supervision and then “ORDERS Defendant to pay all fines, court costs,
and restitution as indicated above.” In addition, the second page of the original
judgment in these cases subsequently states: “Once there, the Court ORDERS
Defendant to pay, or make arrangements to pay, any remaining unpaid fines, court
costs, and restitution as ordered by the Court above.” Therefore, the original
judgments in these cases appear to assess a fine of $500 against Murray. The
record, however, reflects that the trial court did not include a fine in its oral
pronouncement of the sentence in any of the three cases.
The trial court must orally pronounce a defendant’s sentence in the
defendant’s presence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03, § 1(a) (West
Supp. 2013); Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The
judgment, including the sentence assessed, is merely the written declaration and
embodiment of the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Taylor, 131 S.W.3d at
500. When there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of the sentence and
the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Id. When a trial court
revokes an order for deferred adjudication community supervision, it cannot
include the fine that it imposed in the original plea proceeding unless it orally
pronounces the fine at the adjudication hearing. Id. at 502.
7 As set forth above, the record reflects in each case that the trial court did not
assess a fine as part of its oral pronouncement of Murray’s sentence, yet it assessed
a fine of $500 in the original written judgments entered in each case. Therefore, we
sustain Murray’s sole issue in all three cases. We have the power to modify
incorrect judgments when the necessary data and information are available to do
so. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1993); Abron v. State, 997 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998,
pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we modify the language on the second page of the
original judgment in each case ordering the defendant to pay “all fines, court
costs, and restitution as indicated above[,]” leaving the sentence to read: “The
Court ORDERS Defendant to pay court costs and restitution as indicated on page
one of this Judgment.” We also modify the language on the second page of the
original judgment in each case stating, “Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant
to pay, or make arrangements to pay, any remaining unpaid fines, court costs, and
restitution as ordered by the Court above[,]” leaving the sentence to read: “Once
there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay, or make arrangements to pay, any
remaining court costs and restitution as ordered by the Court above.”
We affirm the judgment of the trial court in each case as modified in this
opinion.
8 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
_____________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice
Submitted on January 23, 2014 Opinion Delivered March 12, 2014 Do not publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.