in Re Michael Joseph Griffith, Relator

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00753-CR IN RE Michael Joseph GRIFFITH Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 2, 2011 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On October 17, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s order denying his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. In the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, relator asserted the judgment entered in 1991 was improper because his two sentences were ordered to run consecutively instead of concurrently. On August 26, 2011, the trial court denied relator’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, concluding there was no error in the trial court’s judgment.

“The purpose of a nunc pro tunc order is to correctly reflect from the records of the court a judgment actually made by it, but which for some reason was not entered of record at the proper time.” Alvarez v. State, 605 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). An error in the entry of a judgment is clerical as long as the error did not come about as the product of judicial reasoning. Id. The trial court found the judgment in this case accurately reflected the trial court’s action. While relator contends the error was clerical in nature, the record does not support this assertion. Therefore, we conclude the error relator alleges is not a clerical error in the entry of the judgment that can be corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH