Juan Roberto Rodriguez v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
OPINION
No. 04-22-00238-CR
Juan Roberto RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1990CR1294
Honorable Christine Del Prado, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 14, 2024
AFFIRMED
On July 23, 1990, Appellant Juan Roberto Rodriguez pleaded guilty to arson as a habitual
offender and was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. In that time, Rodriguez has filed many
pleas for time credit and applications for writ of habeas corpus, all of which have been denied or
dismissed. On April 4, 2022, the trial court entered a judgment nunc pro tunc, entering an
additional two months of jail time credit from 1990. This appeal followed. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
04-22-00238-CR
BACKGROUND
On July 23, 1990, Rodriguez pleaded guilty to felony arson as a habitual offender and was
sentenced to 25 years in prison.
During his period of incarceration, Rodriguez was intermittently released on parole. The
time spent while out on parole, also referred to as “street time” may or may not be credited against
an inmate’s sentence. In Rodriguez’s case, he was ineligible for street time credit because of his
criminal history.
In his efforts to obtain street time credit, Rodriguez wrote many pleas and inquiries,
including several applications for writs of habeas corpus that were dismissed by the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals.
In 2019, Rodriguez was again released on parole. While out on parole, he committed the
offense of aggravated assault against a public servant. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was
sentenced to 20 years’ confinement.
Back in custody, Rodriguez continued to file applications for writs of habeas corpus. The
Court of Criminal Appeals issued an abuse of writ order, stating that the court would “not consider
the merits of his [future] applications [for writs of habeas corpus] unless he shows that the factual
or legal basis of his grounds was unavailable in a previously filed application.” Nevertheless,
Rodriguez continued to file applications, as well as letters and pleadings in the trial court.
On April 4, 2022, the trial court issued a judgment nunc pro tunc correcting an old
presentencing jail time credit from 1990.
On April 13, 2022, Rodriguez filed a notice of appeal, stating that the trial court’s
correction failed to consider time he spent in custody in 1989. His brief, however, expanded the
scope of his appeal to include the issue of his street time credit and the calculation of his 20-year
-2-
04-22-00238-CR
sentence for aggravated assault against a public servant. We now address Rodriguez’s appeal of
the trial court’s April 4, 2022 judgment nunc pro tunc.
JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC
A. Parties’ Arguments
Rodriguez claims that he is entitled to more time credit than the trial court’s judgment nunc
pro tunc accounted for because 1) his 20-year sentence for aggravated assault on a public servant
was set to run concurrently with his 25-year sentence for arson, meaning that they should be
calculated to start and end on the same dates, beginning with the earliest start date; and 2) he has
served a net total of 24 years in prison and should already be paroled in both cases. He believes
he has effectively served the full term of both sentences. The State disputes Rodriguez’s argument
that he should receive any credit against his sentence for assault based on time he spent in prison
prior to his commission of that offense.
B. Standard of Review/ Law
We review a judgment nunc pro tunc for its conformity to its purpose, i.e., whether it
remedies a clerical error “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, 898 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2012) (citing Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Alvarez v. State,
605 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)).
Whether an error is clerical or judicial depends on whether its remedy required judicial
reasoning. Id. (citing Ex parte Poe, 751 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)). A judgment
nunc pro tunc is judicial if it, for example, “modifies, changes, or alters the original judgment
pronounced in court, or has the effect of making a new order.” Id. (citing Ex parte Dickerson, 702
S.W.2d 657, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)).
-3-
04-22-00238-CR
The corrections of a proper judgment nunc pro tunc “must reflect the judgment that was
actually rendered but that for some reason was not properly entered into the record at the time of
the judgment.” Id. (citing Jones v. State, 795 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)); accord
In re Hancock, 212 S.W.3d 922, 928 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.).
C. Analysis
Rodriguez’s argument reaches beyond the allowable scope of a judgment nunc pro tunc
appeal. See id. Rather than arguing that the trial court’s judgment was clerically incorrect,
Rodriguez has argued instead for the application of judicial reasoning to his sentences in both this
case and his separate assault case. Contra id. The proper vehicle for Rodriguez’s argument would
be an application for a writ of habeas corpus, see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, though
the Court of Criminal Appeals has cautioned Rodriguez against submitting any previously resolved
habeas issues. Because we have been presented with no argument or evidence that the trial court’s
judgment was clerically incorrect, we overrule Rodriguez’s sole issue. See Blanton, 369 S.W.3d
at 898.
CONCLUSION
Rodriguez failed to show that the trial court erred in its entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc
that documented two additional months of presentencing jail credit from 1990. The trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Publish
-4-