Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00424-CR
IN RE Vicente REYES
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 25, 2014
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On June 13, 2014, relator Vicente Reyes filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus
complaining of the trial court’s order denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. For the
following reasons, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
In 2007, Reyes was tried by a jury on a multiple-count indictment. He was ultimately
convicted and sentenced on five counts of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of indecency
with a child, while other counts contained in the indictment were abandoned by the prosecution at
trial and not presented to the jury. This court affirmed Reyes’s conviction on direct appeal in
Appeal No. 04-07-00203-CR. See Reyes v. State, 274 S.W.3d 724, 732 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2008, pet. ref’d).
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2006CR6988, styled The State of Texas v. Vicente Reyes, in the 290th
Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Melisa Skinner presiding.
04-14-00424-CR
Several years later, Reyes filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in the trial court,
seeking the entry of a judgment of acquittal on the counts abandoned by the prosecutor at trial.
The trial court denied the request for judgment nunc pro tunc on March 26, 2012, concluding there
was no error in the defendant’s judgment. Reyes now seeks mandamus relief, requesting that this
court direct the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal on the abandoned counts. Reyes also
contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the convictions and sentences on the counts
that were presented to the jury, rendering his trial illegal and his convictions void.
We agree with the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. “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). Even long after the entry of
judgment, a trial court retains the power to correct any clerical error which may appear in its
judgment by a nunc pro tunc order. Id. However, mandamus will issue to direct the entry of a
judgment nunc pro tunc only if the defendant’s right to the requested relief is absolutely
indisputable. See In re Brown, 343 S.W.3d 803, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The trial court found
that the judgment of conviction entered in 2007 accurately reflected the jury’s determination and
the trial court’s action. The record does not reveal any clerical error in the entry of the judgment.
Therefore, we cannot conclude the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying Reyes’s
motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.
Because we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relator’s motion
for judgment nunc pro tunc, relator is not entitled to the relief sought by mandamus. Accordingly,
the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-