$£tte_/*///j£d£ § 3Jtt4k D'skicL&oLl
tt).tJt/as3?3$
RECEIVED IN
The Court of Ai
Appeals % The^6urtofA»p?als— '
Sixth Distrl
district Sixth District
JUL 0 8 2016 WL 0 fl 20IU
V' —Texarkana-Texas-\--—J
Debra Autrey, Clerk -Texafk-ariarTexas-
Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
f^S/MfJ^Je..
Mass 44* *'J/9S70J ms/'J#*Z2_
li&{^&/£/^^^
-&•
£&o)t£.a_plt.A_te£eJ.m£0j--)
0/7
/-c/-7
44l—^QZa^L^J^iL J?A^
WAIL
/•J JY/ws/jes/h*** _
/?/^ d?/s*.
Ssf/&*€/' //S- '
/?&> 72;/?£ tf&d <0?s&/v „j -£wsw-*y ^/W/mr •sep&ws*.
y
J -of- 7
A&Js&s ^^y&r ssMtf&A
£$/&j0A6?/ A/fa rtf£A&i/ M?ss ^'ud4*0frA&. 4A _.£k£*A%d&'.
/ Sy J$/& / /Js dtSf//fs/^A&A&^-jA-&.^a&L
/^x^£»r-. /4/m^'^^Y^
d.fS0fo AS''// //*> Mk&f- #/ /&/S0/A?/s/j*
^2$&fs& d?s?
d* ?vs f£04M.a£
&#&
J-J &/J& .4.
3-of-7
JtA? srV/J7/>fo?s i4ps>/42?ss _A&"tf. -&A A/sA/cAsd/o^jy
tw 0VJ/eA -_^!%> s?s?yA—
Ay/rs.Aa* .,• JA. 4pya*y&- -j&<**- ^«j-..&fM>r*y ^^^^r._/?^^-^^-
y.Mt//s>f yy a^a&osa a»aa aa ^/4^^a^
•k /set/, yy^. sAyyy*- <£^yA/y/ yy> „~.,^
k> #^As /A Am/ y?c*?y k> AA r4As^ /fcA^JL.,
7% /cs/'&q) J?As?s /As Aiey^auj^Me-'lLA^^yy>t.
Jc/A^a^y pr A/yy <5 ;J%W/, £/t//y A* J& y*/i£s _*j;A/_
*5$ Ay f'W Mei/A (I'm tieJii ful pfa-dfilfs lU of/^se Ms)
..Willi __A'/CaAo^s^ _cos/Jde^ij/ #f /As tf/t*J As-
M< Ac/ztfat/y /i £?//fc Aa A„SfA/4*ss__.
7A/A a*s #&>* /As aaco /s? /Zwr_ s4?£* &t/£A A. A&f^e*^ '
#a d/&Jx ?M, &/S /J,s /Lt/, ma/A 404*s&,__
w'J; ^™/f n 0/ Aa^P/AAs 'A- £/?s?sirA , 7MJtd£/ 2/
(Tf/ MM- Ap& H*?i s/aJ^ "ujXm j £;*/ fa/ M£,T „
..-•/./ a / y /> ; ;
/WAA* A'Ass A^yffi^A^/ AvAsA^A /A"—~~
**JA
if.^jL AA Au// JstJys^A^s &.*AAAAAaAm/
\fo«t/ StuMaiA yfj- fAe/. *A .AC yA, ****»&/____
-Z/b^-AaeA-.Ajj v_£^_^ 0&'tt/&#s_£A*/y^AAjAAj.
Ta; /A/.. As#0/»v A* A&A &>>A A?A /7o AffA ^A^^A
s-*f-7
A f/ssA.. AA AsfA/j Aw ss? toooA-.
/>/?*-AA—A'- Ar&?se#w&A J^ /?A As/y AAAAA
As&sA. J** /^A^^Au&isALAjL-jiac^AA
7^ fi/eA'a. AA/*r A? A&AJ**) /s.
A/* AA, /y^A A j~A 5?&a/ wAs
AA'** /s mJ/ A-Ms*se4 - y,s AA <*&> ^A-
AA 4C& MS J- ^sfSasvs- AA s?A> 1/6A
/J rj* yA» yyts^sA /s .
&
/. 6A* ytyyys A/J /A A/J/!t Itwilj} A/j?i£. d.
2Melton is correctinthat, if the trial court in fact did or does deny his motion forjudgment nuncprotunc, mandamus
is the appropriate next step. Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695 {Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Ybarra, 149
S.W.3d 147, 14S-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
3Melton was convicted in trial court cause numbers 20,570 and 20,572; he filed a distinct motion forjudgment nunc
pro tunc in each of the cases, but has filed a single petition for writ of mandamus. The issues and arguments in the
two trial causes are identical, so the single petition for mandamus relief is appropriate.
./ 652, 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see also Ex parte Harvey, 846 S.W.2d 328, 329 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1993) (jail time credited by trial court may not exceed time between date of commission of
"* ~* m i •
•*•
• offense,and imposition of sentence). Taking into account the offense and sentence dates from
Melton's judgments, if it is assumed,he was arrested immediately, on the dates of the offenses, he
could have served only 162 days in jail for the January 24,2001, offense and only 100 days for the
March 27, 2001, offense. Obviously, this does not account for any time during which Melton was
not in custody so that he could commit the March 27 offense, but that calculation is not necessary
\ for our purposes.
i'
According to Melton's petition, prison officials would not give him credit for the 258 days
as ordered in the trial court's judgments because that number of credited days would pre-date both
offense dates. Melton filed an application for habeas corpus relief, and the Texas Court of
Criminal Appealsfordered the trial court to conduct a hearing)and make findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Ex parte Melton, Nos. 44,431-02, 44,431-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 14,
- 2002) (not designated for publication). The^trial;court4s?es1jitm
•>•;: *
?1*5 73J*s?-
days,';^1hat*Melt^ and that nunc pro tunc
'judgments should be entered to effectuatejhe plea agreement and ensure Melton received the
The trial court issued one set of findings and conclusions, bearing the two cause numbers ofMelton's two cases. The
trial court did not distinguish or take into consideration the separate March offense date for Melton's second case.
f.jrtvi*a ».,• v
»,' j .•• •" i
w* - -,*,».
<7?cfA/// s&* £Avse_ AtjA /e/AA A&;£A ./ZAfJ_ A_.coA£__MeAe_..A/0
^CouZi- - ^//^jA^^A/l^^/r^/^^/^ ?v//A d *fl^s4> AA /yjxrAe As tmc/
Lor u/&L m*„ A /O^uAj-fliA/^l/ef fJteu UJa (*a/I ™w ale/-' -
A -\
number of days' credit promised him in the plea agreement. The trial court then entered a S\A
judgment nunc pro tunc for each of Melton's cases.twhere the trial court changed Melton's ^
, \ sentences to nineteen years and 200 days, and again credited Melton with 258 days servedJ The i
-^. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Melton's applications for habeas relief. A*^
In June 2010, Melton filed motions for judgments nunc pro tunc with the trial court, in ^'
which he asked the trial court to order compliance with the plea agreement and sentence of July 5, yi
2001. In other words, Melton asked the trial court to correct the judgments nunc pro tunc entered 'J
\
in January 2003 sothat the judgments would track theoriginal plea agreement that was reflected in f
^ *"*
the original July 5, 2001, judgments.
Melton has attached several documents to his petition to this Court, including the original; ^
vN
judgments; the trial court's findings and conclusions; the trial court's judgments nunc pro tunc,
entered in January 2003; and Meltpn^s motions for judgment nunc pro tunc, fifed in June 2010. _
kWe have not, however, been provided with any order from the trial court disposing of Melton's
lb June 2010 motions for nunc pro tunc relief. Melton states in his petition that the district clerk has
told Melton the motions were denied, but we have no evidence of that before us. T Q
Tie <Ji$kACIt<t[__k/Afflc—tty—^^JinAA "
X—tj.ltJ—C-.k*MM—jLy. -fttt. JtA ifJ—^.lAJkejuyH_eAAjAJiA_^
fipp^Lcoo(A W. dzfiieL-
•*—$• yRegardless of whether these acts by the trial court were erroneous, see Ex parte Dopps, 723 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1986); Wilson v. State, 677 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), those judgments are not before usJ
6Meltonalso complains that fines were assessed inthejudgments, in spite of theplea agreement thatno fine was to be
assessed in either case. We point out the imposition of $249.25 on each case represents court costs, not fines.
A
_* _*a,..*?
UNIT COPY T.D.C.J.-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION 'Q#5£2.0J521(&-995
IABS2400 INMATE TIMESLIPS
NAME: MELTON,BRIAN KEITH TDC NO: 01052738 UNIT: EA
RACE: W
*PREV PRJ-REL-DATE:
*PRES PRJ-REL-DATE: MAX-EXP-DATE 03 27 2021
*INMATE STATUS: MAX TERM: •2;0ffi0!blfc0,p;
FLAT TIME CREDITED: 15 02 30 ,&A-|jGfeBEOI^DAVTLg3Wq!JlOBlK?7jfiO;l.
GOOD TIME CREDITED: 5 06 23 TDC RECEIVE DATE: 08 16 01
BONUS TIME CREDITED: 0 00 00 GOOD TIME LOST: 940
WORK TIME CREDITED: 0 06 13 WORK TIME LOST: 0
*TOTAL TIME CREDITED: 21 04 06
*STATUS EFFECT DATE: 04 22 14 JAIL GOOD TIME RECEIVED: YES
PAROLE DATA: SUBMITTED FOR BOARD REVIEW
^MONTHLY ABSENCE CALCULATION* 31.0 ABSENCES FOR 05/16
ANY ERRORS IN THE NUMBER OF DAYS OF UNEXCUSED ABSENCES MUST BE
REPORTED TO THE ABSENTEE TRACKING COORDINATOR ON YOUR UNIT NO
LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE REPORTED MONTH. FAILURE TO
REPORT ERRORS MEANS AGREEMENT WITH THE REPORTED ABSENCES.