Ex Parte Mattox, 20430.
Decision Date | 03 May 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 20430.,20430. |
Citation | 129 S.W.2d 641 |
Parties | Ex parte MATTOX. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
M. E. Gates, and Gordon M. Burns, both of Huntsville, for relator.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The application together with certified copies of records attached present the following facts:
On June 14, 1937, an indictment was returned into the district court of Orange County, Texas, charging relator in the first count with robbery by "using and exhibiting a firearm, to-wit: a pistol." The second and third counts charged ordinary robbery by assault and violence and putting the injured party in fear of life and bodily injury.
On June 18th there was filed in said district court the following instrument in writing:
There appears in the minutes of the court a judgment entered on the same day — June 18th — which recites that relator entered a plea of guilty "to the charge in the indictment." Then appears a recital of the proper admonition to relator regarding his plea of guilty, followed by these recitals:
On June 25th sentence was pronounced against relator which appeared in the minutes as follows (omitting the formal preliminary recitals):
Relator was confined in the penitentiary under the foregoing orders and proceedings. On January 27, 1939, an application for writ of habeas corpus was presented by relator to the Hon. Max M. Rogers, District Judge, 12th Judicial District, averring that relator was held by the penitentiary authorities under a void judgment and sentence of the District Court of Orange County. The writ was granted and hearing set for February 4, 1939. Upon said hearing Judge Rogers entered the following order:
On February 6th, the District Judge of Orange County made an order reciting that relator had been released by the prison officials "without cause" and remanded him to the custody of the sheriff of Orange County. A capias was issued for relator by the clerk of the district court of said county, and he was taken into custody by the said sheriff. On February 7, 1939, a motion was filed in said district court at a regular term thereof by the district attorney alleging that on June 18, 1937, a judgment was rendered in said court against relator upon his plea of guilty to the second and third counts of the indictment, there being incorporated in the judgment a recital that "the first count having been duly dismissed" upon motion by the state, and including recitals of waiver of a jury by relator and consent thereto by the district attorney and the presiding judge, and a further recital that in said judgment rendered the court found relator guilty of robbery as charged in the third count of the indictment, and assessed his punishment at fifteen years in the penitentiary. It was further alleged in said motion that there had been a failure to enter the judgment rendered during the term and praying the court that said judgment be "now entered" upon the minutes. Upon proper notice to relator the District Court of Orange County on February 25th, 1939 entered an order sustaining the State's motion to enter a judgment nunc pro tunc, finding that the averments in the State's motion were true, and reciting as follows: "It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the following sentence which was rendered on the 25th day of June, A. D. 1937, and judgment which was rendered on the 18th day of June, A. D. 1937, but which sentence and judgment was incorrectly entered upon the minutes of this Court, be now entered upon the minutes of this Court, as of said last named dates, to-wit: the sentence on the 25th day of June, A. D. 1937, and the Judgment on the 18th day of June, A. D. 1937."
After the foregoing there follows a nunc pro tunc judgment reciting all the necessary admonitions and waivers giving the court authority to receive a plea of guilty to a felony less than capital, and adjudging relator to be guilty of "robbery" and fixing the punishment at fifteen years in the penitentiary, and then follows a nunc pro tunc sentence reciting that relator had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex Parte Patterson
...truth relative to such sentences. This the court had a right to do under the doctrine laid down in the late case of Ex parte Mattox, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 380, 129 S.W.2d 641, 644. In that case the judgment and sentence evidenced the fact that the relator Mattox had entered a plea of guilty before ......
-
Miles v. State
...for which the defendant was convicted.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.01, § 1(13). Appellant relies on Ex parte Mattox, 137 Tex.Crim. 380, 129 S.W.2d 641 (1939), to suggest that it is a clerical error for a judgment to reflect unnecessary verbiage. Mattox had been charged with one coun......
-
Teasley v. Commonwealth
...that defect is now beside the point. See Annotation, 10 A.L.R. at page 543; 30 Am.Jur., Judgments, § 95, p. 867; Ex parte Mattox, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 380, 129 S.W.2d 641. At any rate, the judgment of the Hustings Court was not contested and the proceedings that followed were as per mitted by that......
-
Ex Parte Kinsey
...and corrected the sentence as it was actually pronounced upon him. See Ex parte Brown, Tex.Cr.App., 210 S.W.2d 597; Ex parte Mattox, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 380, 129 S.W.2d 641; Burnett v. State, 14 Tex. 455, 65 Am.Dec. 131, and In re Black, 52 Kan. 64, 34 P. 414, 39 Am. St.Rep. Under the facts as de......