stating that absent motion to revoke and issuance of capias, “a trial court has no jurisdiction to modify community supervision after the supervision term has expired” and holding that trial court “lacked jurisdiction to do anything further in this case other than to discharge Cherry from probation”
How later courts described this case
- stating that absent motion to revoke and issuance of capias, “a trial court has no jurisdiction to modify community supervision after the supervision term has expired” and holding that trial court “lacked jurisdiction to do anything further in this case other than to discharge Cherry from probation”
- explaining that a “nunc pro tunc order can only be used to make corrections to ensure that the judgment conforms with what was already determined and not what should have been determined”
- finding judicial, not clerical, error when trial court ordered period of supervision to start on October 18, 2004, although court may have meant for period to start on October 18, 2005
- conditionally granting mandamus in response to trial court’s granting of judgment nunc pro tunc, which was held to be void
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BOB PEMBERTON, Justice,
dissenting.
For reasons stated in the panel’s opinion on original submission, I would deny the amended petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition and dismiss as moot the motion for temporary relief.