We have a defendant who was convicted of indecency by contact as a lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual assault. Because it was a lesser-included, the judgment does not indicate on its face that the offense was 3g, and the "coding" was also incorrect. Things being what they are, the first person that learned of the problem was the complainant's mother, who was told that the defendant would be eligible for parole in about 6 years, instead of 30. She's understandably upset.

TDCJ says they don't have forms SB45 and/or 1433. Is there some easy way to fix this problem without getting a judgment nunc pro tunc? We've been pushed off into in a telephone menu circle that provides no answers.

Given the significant difference in parole eligibility and the concern of the victim's mother, why not go the extra mile and get a judgment nunc pro tunc. It's not hard and it's the right thing to do. If you want TDCJ to treat the case seriously and get it right, the judgment is the best document to offer.

It also points out the need for prosecutors to proofread their own judgments.

I had the same problem with a defendant that pled to sexual assault of a child under the age of 17 (3g). He was sentenced to 10 TDCJ and spent one month in TDCJ before the victim's mother received a parole hearing letter(arrested 7-30-99). I don't know that proof-reading a judgment would make a difference in that there wasn't an error in the judgment. It was in the classification. I'm sure all prosecutors would put in subsections if they knew that is what TDCJ was requiring for classification of sex offenders. It seems to be a serious lack of communication on the part of TDCJ and the cost is great.

Our judgments don't recite the penal code section, but instead describe it in sometimes arcane language. In this case, it is difficult to say that there is a clerical error to fix because the judgment correctly reflects that the defendant was convicted of "indecency with a child." The only thing we would add is "by contact."

We were told to contact the following person to correct this situation:

Time Section
Attn: Terry Laskie
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342

TDCJ has a great interest (as should all prosecutors) in making sure the judgment reflects the penal code provision that was used to punish the defendant. In fact, TDCJ just finished participating in a lengthy rewrite of the felony judgment forms that are provided by the Office of Court Administration.

The new forms make it clear that a section number is critical. Your office should adopt these new forms as the standard to be used. For a link to the new forms, go to the TDCAA "Links" page and click on "Felony Judgment Forms."

Several prosecutors, including myself, participated in the work done by OCA, and the results were sent by mail to all the offices in the state, so your boss may have a disk sitting on his or her desk for you to use. They also can be downloaded from the OCA web site.

The format for the new felony judgment forms is quite easy to use. It also makes it more likely the defendant will do the time he or she got.

The OCA judgments are really nice. Our judgments are generated by a legacy mainframe computer system that is a thorn in the side of many attempts at reform. Its going to cost millions of clams to convert the things on that system to something that you or I would consider a computer, much less a computer with flexiblity to change every other year like the law.