$£tte_/*///j£d£                         §   3Jtt4k D'skicL&oLl
tt).tJt/as3?3$
                   RECEIVED IN
                 The Court of Ai
                              Appeals   %      The^6urtofA»p?als—         '
                     Sixth Distrl
                            district               Sixth District
                    JUL 0 8 2016                 WL 0 fl 20IU
    V'         —Texarkana-Texas-\--—J
               Debra Autrey, Clerk             -Texafk-ariarTexas-
                                             Debra K. Autrey, Clerk


f^S/MfJ^Je..




           Mass 44* *'J/9S70J ms/'J#*Z2_
         li&{^&/£/^^^
                                                          -&•
         £&o)t£.a_plt.A_te£eJ.m£0j--)




                                                                    0/7



                             /-c/-7
             44l—^QZa^L^J^iL      J?A^




                                                  WAIL




   /•J JY/ws/jes/h***                     _
  <x-J. /%//#£* & jJ,&r w J?/4s    ._
  3J Ta;i/#A>/?/^ d?/s*.




                                           Ssf/&*€/' //S- '




/?&> 72;/?£ tf&d <0?s&/v „j -£wsw-*y ^/W/mr •sep&ws*.
                                              y




                 J -of- 7
A&Js&s ^^y&r ssMtf&A



£$/&j0A6?/ A/fa rtf£A&i/ M?ss ^'ud4*0frA&. 4A _.£k£*A%d&'.
 / Sy J$/& / /Js dtSf//fs/^A&A&^-jA-&.^a&L




       /^x^£»r-. /4/m^'^^Y^
d.fS0fo AS''// //*>     Mk&f- #/ /&/S0/A?/s/j*
                                            ^2$&fs&   d?s?




d* ?vs f£04M.a£
                  &#&

J-J &/J& .4.




                      3-of-7
      JtA? srV/J7/>fo?s i4ps>/42</
      37/? yy?_/€s<ya>?ss _A&"tf. -&A A/sA/cAsd/o^jy
tw 0VJ/eA -_^!%> s?s?y<?t/*0r ^/A^Ap* /&?j?r^±—ZAa
\/?yy/ yy<- A'*/ &**•/. y^-jiJei^M^&tif-^^^^-
 6 *y/*-y a */*&.* tJ/^^J-yy-te/*

^eM^^ea^js^iy^Sy.^^---yy&—&*s^—j*ysy#&>A—
Ay/rs.Aa* .,• JA. 4pya*y&- -j&<**- ^<zA^u;/yL0^A-J
     _£?yy* *£>«j-..&fM>r*y ^^^^r._/?^^-^^-



 y.Mt//s>f yy a^a&osa a»aa aa ^/4^^a^
 •k /set/, yy^. sAyyy*- <£^yA/y/ yy> „~.,^
 k> #^As /A Am/ y?c*?y k> AA r4As^ /fcA^JL.,



     7% /cs/'&q) J?As?s /As Aiey^auj^Me-'lLA^^yy>t.
Jc/A^a^y pr A/yy <5 ;J%W/, £/t//y A* J& y*/i£s _*j;A/_
*5$ Ay f'W Mei/A (I'm tieJii ful pfa-dfilfs lU of/^se Ms)
..Willi        __A<iJ
fjMjr                     J                     A...-,.... A
     Ik £t?Z^/^yF^3t^

     3Au /?/&?__ .tfAgeJ/s?.. S>'/CaAo^s^ _cos/Jde^ij/ #f /As tf/t*J As-


M< Ac/ztfat/y /<? fsyj-vts C&tfy/Aw m'zJ- ./Y*l. ^A*
04£yA'/9* JcMfj Mf y/w &AA?y/>i £?//fc Aa A„SfA/4*ss__.


7A/A a*s #&>* /As aaco /s? /Zwr_ s4?£* &t/£A A. A&f^e*^ '
     #a d/&Jx ?M, &/S /J,s /Lt/, ma/A 404*s&,__
w'J; ^™/f n 0/ Aa^P/AAs 'A- £/?s?sirA , 7MJtd£/ 2/
(Tf/ MM- Ap& H*?i s/aJ^ "ujXm j £;*/ fa/ M£,T „
..-•/./     a /      y  />          ;     ;
/WAA*     A'Ass A^yffi^A^/   AvAsA^A        /A"—~~
                                                **JA

 if.^jL AA Au// JstJys^A^s &.*AAAAAaAm/
\fo«t/ StuMaiA yfj- fAe/. *A .AC yA, ****»&/____
 -Z/b^-AaeA-.Ajj v_£^_^ 0&'tt/&#s_£A*/y^AAjAAj.
Ta; /A/.. As#0/»<fA*r..A/eat/teL-.^/^.<^c^A^..A^A^/2_____


   j,>v A* A&A &>>A A?A /7o AffA ^A^^A
                         s-*f-7
 A f/ssA.. AA AsfA/j Aw ss?<?A/As/> toooA-.
/>/?*-AA—A'- Ar&?s<?.-AAsr AA-st—A-A/0aa-A—j&£j!-
 /tf/O /t-A Ms/ A jO?C/?AA AAo,AeCJa?e—AAe-.As/0'JL
A AC yAw. ,./y>e#w&A J^ /?A As/y AAAAA
           As&sA. J** /^A^^Au&isALAjL-jiac^AA



    7^ fi/eA'a. AA/*r A? A&AJ**) /s.
      A/* AA, /y^A A j~A 5?&a/ wAs
  AA'** /s mJ/ A-Ms*se4 - y,s AA <*&> ^A-
 AA 4C& MS J- ^sfSasvs- AA s?A> 1/6A
   /J rj* yA» yyts^sA /s <?oA^ *A&* s?AA*
A/?0szA-

  AJ A* AA^A/xAa^ ^A*y A._*,A<*
#** Jlsfij^A A AA A^OO/ , bemuse. /A.
wtte «ci aAL^a L Au>.


                &
      /.   6A* ytyyys A/J /A A<Vsj/A-AUe*/_
#AAj&yA A,A aeAe AA J^A*?A A.JoAs
/?£#/ rf?A s?*A Me*AA

                  &,- of'?
           —:. Jaa?A/s Dec/aaia //on ' .. ..
                                                  -A/yoA*/7./L-

                                   _           . . ., . A&2£#/Af^.
WAAS J/Jr #f #?<A a&0^A*&A^--•- r/s -.w^-A/A^?^L^
A^Mf- AA*. M#e. .A/7 (/. A*2A&A//l- —         :
                                    ^ijM



  '£ej&MMA9—e

I^UZA/AA^ „/&AA-AA*L   ^/as%73A
.jE#sJJdA?_$f/r
JU 5. ft/so* £A M/_
Ai/eAy, /y. 75#<r/




                       7-of-7
                                                    A



                      In The
               Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana



               -No. 06 10 00212 OR




                      IN RE:
             BRIAN KEITH MELTON




          Original Mandamus Proceeding




    Before Morriss, C.J:, Carter and Moseley, JJ.
   Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
 r^^—^_^^Z1j^^^?^--^5^_slstkyA-A^


                                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


          Brian Keith Melton's original 2001 plea agreement, entered in two cases, called for giving

 him credit for 258 days against his sentences. jPhe:problem with'that-agreement'was that such X,

^^editfexc'eededa^                                                                                               As a•

 result, there have been various efforts initiated by Melton seeking to solve the problem, including

 the pro se petition for writ of mandamus now before this Court in these two cases.

          As part of his corrective efforts, Melton filed motions for judgment nunc pro tunc with the

 trial court. Melton claims the trial court denied the motions and, as a result, now petitions this

 Court for mandamus relief.2 Because there isnothing in the record before us establishing that the

 trial court has ruled on the motions, we deny Melton's requested relief.3
          A trial court shall give a defendant credit toward the defendant's sentence for time he or

 she spent in jail from the time of his or her arrest and confinement until the defendant is sentenced

 by the trial court. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03, § 2(a)(1), (2) (Vernon Supp. 2010).

 The trial court cannot, however, give credit for noncustody time. Ex parte Hayward, 711 S.W.2d

—Melton's plea^agreenient was^entered July 5, 2001, in-trial court cause numbers 20,57uand 20,572,,in eacH.ofwhich'
£tie£,was charged with"l3urgla"ry;of.a.habitation, based.on offenses.committed January 2^4,;_2001',1nd,,March 27^-2001,
^respectjyely.. Under'the'plea agreement^ Melton would bVsentenced to" twenty years^incarcefatipri;in"eacH case.and
"receive crejJitjT^                               credit against his sentences,.However^w^Tnot honored by'the-Texas
'Departmentqf^CriminaU                                                           °^^^^^C3c>/J/!t Itwilj} A/j?i£. d.
 2Melton is correctinthat, if the trial court in fact did or does deny his motion forjudgment nuncprotunc, mandamus
 is the appropriate next step. Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695 {Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Ybarra, 149
 S.W.3d 147, 14S-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

 3Melton was convicted in trial court cause numbers 20,570 and 20,572; he filed a distinct motion forjudgment nunc
 pro tunc in each of the cases, but has filed a single petition for writ of mandamus. The issues and arguments in the
 two trial causes are identical, so the single petition for mandamus relief is appropriate.
./     652, 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); see also Ex parte Harvey, 846 S.W.2d 328, 329 (Tex. Crim.

       App. 1993) (jail time credited by trial court may not exceed time between date of commission of
             "* ~*                                                       m       i   •
         •*•




     • offense,and imposition of sentence). Taking into account the offense and sentence dates from

       Melton's judgments, if it is assumed,he was arrested immediately, on the dates of the offenses, he

       could have served only 162 days in jail for the January 24,2001, offense and only 100 days for the

       March 27, 2001, offense. Obviously, this does not account for any time during which Melton was

       not in custody so that he could commit the March 27 offense, but that calculation is not necessary

     \ for our purposes.
                                                                                                                                           i'
                     According to Melton's petition, prison officials would not give him credit for the 258 days

       as ordered in the trial court's judgments because that number of credited days would pre-date both

       offense dates.         Melton filed an application for habeas corpus relief, and the Texas Court of

      Criminal Appealsfordered the trial court to conduct a hearing)and make findings of fact and
       conclusions of law. Ex parte Melton, Nos. 44,431-02, 44,431-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 14,

     - 2002) (not designated for publication). The^trial;court4s?es1jitm
                                                                                                                                   •>•;:        *




                                                                                                                    ?1*5 73J*s?-


      days,';^1hat*Melt^                                                                     and that nunc pro tunc

     'judgments should be entered to effectuatejhe plea agreement and ensure Melton received the


       The trial court issued one set of findings and conclusions, bearing the two cause numbers ofMelton's two cases. The
      trial court did not distinguish or take into consideration the separate March offense date for Melton's second case.


                              f.jrtvi*a                           ».,•       v


       »,'                                     j   .••   •"   i


                                 w* - -,*,».
<7?cfA/// s&* £Avse_ AtjA /e/AA A&;£A ./ZAfJ_ A_.coA£__MeAe_..A/0
^CouZi- - ^//^jA^^A/l^^/r^/^^/^ ?v//A d *fl^s4> AA /yjxrAe As tmc/
Lor <?u/&L m*„ A /O^uAj-fliA/^l/ef                                  fJteu UJa (*a/I                     ™w ale/-' -
                                                                                                         A                                       -\

             number of days' credit promised him in the plea agreement. The trial court then entered a                                         S\A

             judgment nunc pro tunc for each of Melton's cases.twhere the trial court changed Melton's ^

   , \       sentences to nineteen years and 200 days, and again credited Melton with 258 days servedJ The i
      -^. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Melton's applications for habeas relief.                                 A*^
                      In June 2010, Melton filed motions for judgments nunc pro tunc with the trial court, in ^'

             which he asked the trial court to order compliance with the plea agreement and sentence of July 5, yi

             2001. In other words, Melton asked the trial court to correct the judgments nunc pro tunc entered 'J
                                                                                                                                     \

             in January 2003 sothat the judgments would track theoriginal plea agreement that was reflected in f
                                                         ^                                                                           *"*
             the original July 5, 2001, judgments.

                      Melton has attached several documents to his petition to this Court, including the original; ^
      vN
             judgments; the trial court's findings and conclusions; the trial court's judgments nunc pro tunc,

             entered in January 2003; and Meltpn^s motions for judgment nunc pro tunc, fifed in June 2010. _
           kWe have not, however, been provided with any order from the trial court disposing of Melton's
           lb June 2010 motions for nunc pro tunc relief.          Melton states in his petition that the district clerk has

             told Melton the motions were denied, but we have no evidence of that before us. T                                             Q
                          Tie <Ji$kACIt<t[__k/Afflc—tty—^^JinAA                                                                            "
                           X—tj.ltJ—C-.k*MM—jLy. -fttt. JtA ifJ—^.lAJkejuyH_eAAjAJiA_^
                         fipp^Lcoo(A W. dzfiieL-

    •*—$• yRegardless of whether these acts by the trial court were erroneous, see Ex parte Dopps, 723 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex.
             Crim. App. 1986); Wilson v. State, 677 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), those judgments are not before usJ
             6Meltonalso complains that fines were assessed inthejudgments, in spite of theplea agreement thatno fine was to be
             assessed in either case. We point out the imposition of $249.25 on each case represents court costs, not fines.


                                                                                                                                     A




                                                                                                                               _* _*a,..*?
 UNIT    COPY                T.D.C.J.-INSTITUTIONAL                  DIVISION            'Q#5£2.0J521(&-995
 IABS2400                              INMATE      TIMESLIPS


 NAME:    MELTON,BRIAN          KEITH                               TDC   NO:    01052738               UNIT:          EA
                                                                      RACE:      W


*PREV    PRJ-REL-DATE:
*PRES    PRJ-REL-DATE:                                        MAX-EXP-DATE                    03    27    2021
*INMATE    STATUS:                                            MAX    TERM:                      •2;0ffi0!blfc0,p;


 FLAT    TIME    CREDITED:             15    02   30         ,&A-|jGfeBEOI^DAVTLg3Wq!JlOBlK?7jfiO;l.
 GOOD    TIME    CREDITED:              5    06   23          TDC    RECEIVE         DATE:         08    16    01
 BONUS    TIME    CREDITED:             0    00   00          GOOD    TIME      LOST:                         940
 WORK    TIME    CREDITED:              0    06   13          WORK    TIME      LOST:                              0
*TOTAL    TIME    CREDITED:            21    04   06



*STATUS    EFFECT       DATE:          04    22   14          JAIL    GOOD      TIME    RECEIVED:             YES
PAROLE    DATA:       SUBMITTED    FOR       BOARD      REVIEW


^MONTHLY    ABSENCE          CALCULATION*               31.0       ABSENCES      FOR    05/16


ANY   ERRORS     IN    THE    NUMBER    OF    DAYS      OF    UNEXCUSED         ABSENCES       MUST       BE
REPORTED    TO    THE    ABSENTEE       TRACKING         COORDINATOR            ON    YOUR    UNIT       NO
LATER    THAN    SIX    MONTHS    FOLLOWING            THE    REPORTED       MONTH.          FAILURE          TO
REPORT    ERRORS       MEANS    AGREEMENT         WITH       THE    REPORTED         ABSENCES.
