in Re Michael Joseph Griffith, Relator ( 2011 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00753-CR
IN RE Michael Joseph GRIFFITH
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 2, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On October 17, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the
trial court’s order denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. In the motion for judgment
nunc pro tunc, relator asserted the judgment entered in 1991 was improper because his two
sentences were ordered to run consecutively instead of concurrently. On August 26, 2011, the
trial court denied relator’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, concluding there was no error in
the trial court’s judgment.
“The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to correctly reflect from the records of the court
a judgment actually made by it, but which for some reason was not entered of record at the
proper time.” Alvarez v. State, 605 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). An error in the
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 4285-91 & 4286-91, styled State of Texas v. Michael Joseph Griffith, in
the 198th Judicial District Court, Mason County, Texas, the Honorable M. Rex Emerson presiding.
04-11-00753-CR
entry of a judgment is clerical as long as the error did not come about as the product of judicial
reasoning. Id. The trial court found the judgment in this case accurately reflected the trial
court’s action. While relator contends the error was clerical in nature, the record does not
support this assertion. Therefore, we conclude the error relator alleges is not a clerical error in
the entry of the judgment that can be corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc. Accordingly, the
petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-