Ex parte Stansbury, 24874

• Decision Date: 14 June 1950
• Docket Number: No. 24874,24874
• Citation: 155 Tex.Crim. 73,231 S.W.2d 431
• Parties: Ex parte STANSBURY.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 431

231 S.W.2d 431

155 Tex.Crim. 73

Ex parte STANSBURY.

No. 24874.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14, 1950.

Bracewell & Wright, Huntsville, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus addressed to District Judge Max M. Rogers represents that he is illegally incarcerated in the penitentiary of Texas, under the following convictions in the Seventh District Court of Smith County, Texas:--Cause No. 14,508, Passing a forged instrument, Cause No. 14,509, Passing a forged instrument, and Cause No. 14,605, Felony theft.

He represents that each of such convictions are void for the reason that the judgments on a plea of guilty before the judge are each indefinite and uncertain as to the punishment assessed against him.

Upon a hearing before Judge Rogers, certified copies of the judgment and sentence in each of said causes, as filed with the Bureau of Records and Identification of the Texas Prison System were offered in evidence and have since been transmitted to this court. Such judgments contain the following recitations as to the punishment assessed by the trial judge:

Cause No. 14,508, dated November 9, 1948, 'That the said defendant be punished by confinement in the penitentiary of the State of Texas for a term of not less than two nor more than three years.'

Cause No. 14,509, dated November 9, 1948, 'That the said defendant be punished by confinement in the penitentiary of the State of Texas for a term of not less than two nor more than three years.'

Cause No. 14,605, dated March 21, 1949, 'That the said defendant be punished by confinement in the penitentiary of the State of Texas for a term of not less than two years, nor more than eight years.'

If, in fact, no definite punishment was assessed by the judge in the judgment pronounced by him, or by a separate order, and the judgment actually pronounced is as shown by such certified copies, then they are insufficient to support the sentence pronounced thereon. See Ex Parte East, Tex.Cr.App., 225 S.W.2d 833; Ex Parte Traxler, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 661, 184 S.W.2d 286; and Edwards v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 219 S.W.2d 1022.

On the other hand, if in fact a definite punishment was assessed against Relator, and the recitations in the judgments as entered are the result of a clerical error, or if there be clerical error in the copies furnished to the Texas Prison System in this regard, then such clerical errors or omissions may be corrected by nunc pro tunc entry in the manner provided by law so as to make the records speak the truth.

And in such event the irregularities would not effect the validity of the...