Medina v. State

Full title: Arturo Melo Medina v. The State of Texas

Court: COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

Date published: Apr 22, 2014

Appellate case numbers: 01-96-00261-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 22, 2014)

Opinion

Appellate case numbers: 01-96-00259-CR Appellate case numbers: 01-96-00260-CR Appellate case numbers: 01-96-00261-CR Trial court case numbers: 9427214 Trial court case numbers: 9427213 Trial court case numbers: 9427947

04-22-2014

Arturo Melo Medina v. The State of Texas

Michael Massengale

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Trial court: 180th District Court of Harris County

Appellant was convicted of murder on February 19, 1996. On direct appeal, this court issued an opinion on November 6, 1997 concluding with the relief that "[w]e reform the trial court's judgment to delete the affirmative finding of a deadly weapon and, as reformed, affirm the trial court's judgment." Medina v. State, 962 S.W.2d 83, 88 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd). Our mandate issued on June 8, 1998 and provided the following:

After submitting the cause and inspecting the record of the court below, it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in that portion of the judgment which affirmatively found the use of a deadly weapon. It is therefore considered, adjudged, and ordered that this portion of the judgment be reformed by deleting the affirmative finding of a deadly weapon.

A true copy of this court's June 8, 1998 mandate is attached to this order.

On February 25, 2014, appellant filed a request that this court order the trial court to reform its judgment by deleting the affirmative finding of a deadly weapon. Although this court's plenary power has expired, our November 6, 1997 opinion constituted this court's judgment, and we may still "enforce or suspend enforcement of [our] judgment." TEX. R. APP. P. 19.3(c). Appellant, however, already has the relief he requests because this court's opinion and mandate already reformed the trial court's judgment. Moreover, appellant's request that we command the trial court to comply with the mandate ignores the fact that the mandate did not require the trial court to take any action to reform its judgment; rather, the mandate, itself, reformed the judgment.

Accordingly, appellant's motion is denied.

It is so ORDERED. Judge's signature: Michael Massengale

[v] Acting individually [ ] Acting for the Court