Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Thomas Navarro v. the State of Texas
Citation: Not availableDocket: 10-19-00128-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 31, 2021; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
An appeal was made by Thomas Navarro against the State of Texas regarding a judgment modified ten years post-issuance through a nunc pro tunc motion. The dissenting opinion addressed three main issues. 1. The first issue questioned whether the trial court erred in enhancing the description of Navarro's offense. The dissent argues that any modification was void due to the trial court lacking jurisdiction to alter the original judgment, emphasizing that the intent of the original judgment was not to include a more expansive description. Therefore, issue one should be sustained in favor of Navarro. 2. The second issue involved whether the trial court erred in recording a true finding on a felony enhancement allegation. Evidence presented during the nunc pro tunc hearing confirmed that the original judgment did not reflect this finding due to a clerical error, justifying the correction. The dissent concurs with the court's decision to uphold this modification. 3. The third issue questioned the addition of a finding regarding family violence, which was not present in the original judgment. The dissent found no support in the record for the assertion that such a finding had been made initially, arguing that the failure to record it was not a clerical error but rather an oversight. Thus, issue three should also be sustained in favor of Navarro. In conclusion, the dissent opposes the court's affirmation of the nunc pro tunc judgment concerning the offense description and family violence finding, while agreeing with the affirmation regarding the enhancement allegation. The dissent was delivered on August 31, 2021, by Chief Justice Tom Gray.