Lucio, Norberto Ahumada
This text of Lucio, Norberto Ahumada (Lucio, Norberto Ahumada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-80,363-03
EX PARTE NORBERTO AHUMADA LUCIO, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 09-CR-2611 IN THE 357TH DISTRICT COURT FROM CAMERON COUNTY
Per curiam. RICHARDSON , J., filed a concurring statement.
ORDER
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the
clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte
Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of theft in the
aggregate and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.
On November 27, 2013, this application was remanded to determine why the judgment in
the nunc pro tunc order has four separate counts and four separate sentences when the offense was
for theft in the aggregate. On February 27, 2014, this Court received the trial court’s supplemental
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court recommended that we deny the application 2
and that the error in the judgment be corrected by a third nunc pro tunc. However, this Court was
not sent a copy of such judgment nunc pro tunc.
On November 26, 2014, this Court ordered the trial court to supplement the record with the
correct nunc pro tunc judgment, or make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to why a nunc
pro tunc has not been entered in this cause. To date, this Court has received neither. Therefore, the
trial court is ordered to forward to this Court a copy of the nunc pro tunc judgment. Once the nunc
pro tunc judgment has been entered by the trial court, a copy of that judgment shall be forwarded to
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Correctional Institutions Division, and confirmation of
that transmittal shall also be included in its response to this remand order. No further fact finding
by the trial court is ordered or allowed concerning this application.
We order the trial court to resolve this issue within 15 days of this order. A supplemental
transcript shall be forwarded to this Court within 30 days of the date of this order. No extensions
will be entertained.
Delivered: March 18, 2015
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lucio, Norberto Ahumada, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucio-norberto-ahumada-texcrimapp-2015.