John Edward Mapp, Jr. v. State of Texas--Appeal from 262nd District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-00-0577-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
JUNE 28, 2002
______________________________
JOHN EDWARD MAPP, JR.,
Appellant
v.
STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 262ND DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;
NO. 847,675; HON. MICHAEL ANDERSON, PRESIDING
_______________________________
ON MOTION TO RECALL MANDATE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, REAVIS and JOHNSON, J.J.
By an unpublished opinion dated November 12, 2001, this Court affirmed appellant
John Edward Mapp, Jr.’s conviction for failing to register as a sex offender. On June 19,
2002, appellant filed a motion entitled “Pro-Se Motion of Appellant’s to Recall and Correct
this Court of Appeals Mandate Issued 2/5/02.” In it appellant argues that there was
“fundamental and reversible error that calculated to injure the rights of the appellant at the
punishment stage of the trial, and in the sentence part of the judgment.” And, that “[i]n the
interest of justice . . . this Court . . . should recall and correct its mandate.” For the reasons
that follow, we deny the motion.
This Court's plenary power over our judgment expired on January 11, 2001, or 60
days after judgment since no timely rehearing was filed. See TEX . R. APP. P. 19.1(a). So,
while we may have the authority to recall our mandate, TEX . R. APP. P. 19.3(b), we lack
jurisdiction to vacate or modify our judgment. See TEX . R. APP. P. 19.3. And, without
plenary power to vacate or modify our judgment, recalling the mandate would not benefit
appellant. See Henderson v. State, 977 S.W.2d 605, 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (denying
leave to withdraw mandate) (Price, J., concurring). This is especially so when appellant
does not contend that recalling the mandate is needed simply to correct a clerical error in
our judgment or opinion but rather to reverse the trial court’s judgment. See TEX . R. APP.
P. 19.3(a) (stating that the mandate can be recalled to correct clerical errors in the
judgment or opinion after the court lost its plenary jurisdiction).
Therefore, appellant’s motion to recall the mandate is denied.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
