in Re: Don Whatley

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 15, 2002
Docket01-02-00795-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re: Don Whatley (in Re: Don Whatley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re: Don Whatley, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Opinion issued August 15, 2002







In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________



NO. 01-02-00795-CV



IN RE DON WHATLEY, Relator



Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator filed in this Court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus asking that we order the respondent (1) to grant his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and remove from the judgment in cause number 17007 the affirmative finding that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the offense. We deny the petition.

The petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. It does not include a certificate of service indicating that respondent was served with a copy of the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5.

In addition, relator has not provided us with a sufficient record that shows he is entitled to relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7. Such a record would have to demonstrate that relator's motion for judgment nunc pro tunc was to correct a mere clerical error. A nunc pro tunc order may correct clerical errors in a judgment, but not judicial omissions or errors resulting from judicial reasoning. Compare Ex parte Poe, 751 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (trial court's entry of judgment nunc pro tunc to reflect jury's finding of deadly weapon was proper because omission in original judgment was clerical error), with Fanniel v. State, 73 S.W.3d 557, 559 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (trial court's entry of judgment nunc pro tunc to include affirmative finding of deadly weapon was improper because absence of such finding in original judgment was result of judicial reasoning, rather than clerical error).

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hedges, Jennings, and Keyes.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

1.

Respondent is the Honorable William McAdams, Judge, 12th District Court, Walker County.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ex Parte Poe
751 S.W.2d 873 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Fanniel v. State
73 S.W.3d 557 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re: Don Whatley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-don-whatley-texapp-2002.