In Re the State of Texas Ex Rel. Dee Hobbs, Williamson County Attorney v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-23-00277-CV
In re the State of Texas ex rel. Dee Hobbs, Williamson County Attorney
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging several actions by
the trial court in the underlying criminal proceeding, including the trial court’s failure to include
an affirmative finding of family violence in the final judgment of conviction. Having reviewed
the petition and the record provided, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R.
App. P. 52.8(a). 1
1 We note that the record reflects that the trial court made an implicit, affirmative finding
of family violence when it entered its original final judgment. See In re Cherry, 258 S.W.3d
328, 333 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, no pet.) (“A judgment nunc pro tunc is the appropriate
avenue to make a correction when the court’s records do not mirror the judgment that was
actually rendered.”). But the record does not demonstrate that the State sought to have the trial
court correct the judgment to include the affirmative finding. See Jackson v. State,
No. 14-13-00747-CV, 2014 WL 6085593, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 13,
2014, no pet.) (upholding judgment nunc pro tunc correcting judgment to reflect affirmative
finding of family violence because record reflected the error “was clearly a clerical one”); cf.
Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W.2d 712, 723 (Tex. 1991) (“[M]andamus is not available to compel
an action which has not first been demanded and refused.”).
__________________________________________
Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis
Filed: July 18, 2023
2