Maurice Lozano v. State
This text of Maurice Lozano v. State (Maurice Lozano v. State) 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.
Opinion
FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST & 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
On December 19, 2002, appellant Maurice Lozano pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated in local cause number A-02-0838-S. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West 2003), § 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 2004). The court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to seven years in prison, as called for in a plea bargain agreement. On the same day, the court revoked appellant's probation in local cause number B-00-0838-S (another felony DWI) and imposed a seven-year sentence.
On October 27, 2003, appellant filed a "motion for nunc pro tunc order" in both cause numbers complaining that prison authorities were not giving him full credit for the time he spent in county jail for these offenses as awarded in the judgments. The motion was denied the day after it was filed. The court wrote a letter to appellant explaining that the time he spent in jail in cause number B-00-0838-S before he committed the offense in cause number A-02-0838-S cannot be credited against his sentence in the latter cause. On November 26, 2003, appellant filed a notice of appeal.
An appeal does not lie from an order denying a request for judgment nunc pro tunc to correct the award of jail time credit. Sanchez v. State, 112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, pet. ref'd). In any event, we note that the error of which appellant complains does not lie in the district court, but in the institutional division of the department of criminal justice. There was nothing for the court to correct in its original judgments. Appellant should pursue his claim by means of a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. See Ex parte Stokes, 15 S.W.3d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
The appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
__________________________________________
W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Patterson
Dismissed
Filed: January 8, 2004
Do Not Publish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
Maurice Lozano v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurice-lozano-v-state-texapp-2004.