EX PARTE JUAN J. RAMON, AKA JUAN S. RAMON, JR. (other)

Annotate this Case
Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion     Close This Window

















IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NO. WR-28,290-05

EX PARTE JUAN J. RAMON, AKA JUAN S. RAMON, JR., Applicant



ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2008CR2700W IN THE 379TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R



Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of theft and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends that: (1) the judgment is invalid because it states that he was convicted of robbery; (2) because of this robbery "conviction," he is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision; (3) the $1,500 fine in the judgment was unauthorized; and (4) he pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would be placed in an in-prison therapeutic community.

The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended that we dismiss this application. We agree in part. In its findings, the trial court stated that Applicant in fact pleaded guilty to theft, not robbery, and that a certified copy of an amended judgment was sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division. The trial court also stated that on October 7, 2008, it entered a judgment nunc pro tunc and deleted the entry of the $1,500 fine. Accordingly, Applicant's first, second, and third grounds are dismissed as moot. The trial court also found that Applicant's placement in an in-prison therapeutic community was not condition of the plea agreement. Accordingly, Applicant's fourth ground is denied.

This application is dismissed in part and denied in part.

Filed: November 19, 2008

Do not publish

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.