January 23, 1973
Honorable F. T. Graham Opinion No. Ii- 2
Criminal District Attorney
Cameron County Courthouse Re: Queetlons relating to
Brounsvllle, Texas 78520 signature and entry of
a judgment nisi by a
District Court at a
term subsequent to
XwnMtlon and docketing
Dear Mr. Qraham: of the judgment.
Your letter of November 21, 1972 requesting our opinion
concerning the entry of a judgment nisi aeks two basic
queatlons:
(1) Can a judgment nisi be signed at a term
subsequent to that In which lt was rendered
and docketed?
(2) If it can be algned at a subsequent term,
what is the errect or a statute of llmlta-
tlon or of lathes?
Judgments nlai are controlled by Title 22 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment nisi lteelf Is
but the first step In the forfeiture of a b&i1 bond and
securing of judgment against the defendant and his euretiea
for the amount of ball. Ae such It la an Interlocutory
jud ent and Is oonditional. Jaokaon v. State, 422 S.il.
2d ft”
48(Tex.Crlm. 1968)
Generally, In 01~11 matters, where all issues have
been adjudicated or agreed upon, announoement by the court
of its decision la the “rendition” of judgment and the
wrftten .Sudnment is but evidence of the .ludxment nrevlousla
rendered’: xeatherwood v. Holland 37 S.g.2;~ 517,lTex.Clv.
APP., Ft. Worth 1964 f Bauah v. State,
402 S.W.2d 768’,(Tex:C~~~:f~66). This 13 held to be true
even though the judge, at the time he signs thh wrltten
order, no longer is a judge. Texae Life Ina, Co. v. Tuxar
,
. -
Honorable F: ,T. Graham, .Page 2 (H-2)
g?yx&““i” 1 307 S.U.2d 149,(Tex.Clv.App.Ft.Worth,1957).
n this latter case analogized the written
Judgment to a bill of exception.
Thla rule has been applied to a Judgment nisi in Bennett
v, State, 394 S.W.2d 804(Tex.Crlm.1965), where, In the-
sequent suit against the sureties, the sureties objected to
admission of the judgment nisi becauee It had not been
signed by the trial judge. The court said:
II e observe that although the judge’s
sIgnat&; i 47 not appear on the judgment lntro-
duced In evidence from the minutes of the court,
his signature was not necessary to the validity
of the judgment. . . .“(394 S.W.2d at 807)
Article 22.04 of Vernon’s Code of Criminal Procedure
doe8 require that a copy of the judgment of forfeiture be
attached to the citation served upon the sureties. To that
extent, then, we conclude that a written judgment must be
entered. Under the decision Pn the Bennett ca8e It la our
opinion that whether or not the judmm signed Is
relatively unimportant If, In fact, It was “rendered” by
the oourt e
Article 22.10 provldea that, when a forfeiture has been
declared and the oase has been docketed upon the civil
docket, “the prooeadlngs had therein shall be governed by ’
the same rules governing other civil suits.”
In civil suits, where through olerlcal error no written
judgment haa been entered or the written judgment entered
does not correctly reflect the judgment rendered, a judgment .
nunc pro tune may be entered so that the written judgment
correctly reflects the judgment rendered. Such judgment
nunc pro tune may be entered after the term at which It
was rendered has ended. Comet Aluminum Co. v. Dlbrell,
450 S.W.2d 56(Tex.1970); Texas Rubber Supply Inc. V:,: Jetslide
International Inc.,466 S.m279(Tex.1971)
We therefore answer your first question that a written
judgment nlsl.may be signed by the dlstrlot oourt at a term
subsequent to that In whloh It wa8 rendero4 and docketed.
_ -.
. . .
Honorable F. T. Qraham, page 3, (H-2)
With reference to your second question we call your
attention to Article 5517 Vernon's Texas Civil Statute@,
which provides that the rights of the State shall not be
barred by any provision of Title 91, "Limitations".
Hemphlll County v. Adams, 408 S.W.2d 926 (Tex., 1966);
see also 37 Tex.Jur.2d Limitation of Actions, Section
27, p.120 toT22.
Nor is lathes available in a suit against the State.
Eellas Levee Improvement District v. Carroll, 263 S.W.2d
307 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1953, error ref. n.r.e.)
Therefore, a8 to the second question we answer that It
is our opinion that the'action against the sureties would
not be barred by either limitation or lathes even though
the judgment nisi might be signed at a term subsequent to
that at which It was rendered.
-SUMMARY-
A judgment nisi may be signed at a term
after that In which ltwae rendered. Since
neither llmltatlon.nor lathes applies to a
suit brought by the State, a delaysoccassloned
by reduction of the judgment nisi to writing
or Its signing at a term subsequent to that
In which It was rendered, will not bar an
action under Article 22.03 et seq. of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
A Yours very truly,
APPROVED:
Assistant
/
DAVID M KENDALL Chairman
Oplnion'Commltte;!
-s-