Charles Robert Blake v. The State of TexasAppeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County (memorandum opinion by chief justice gray)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-14-00008-CR CHARLES ROBERT BLAKE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012-1940-C2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Charles Robert Blake appeals the trial court s issuance of a judgment Nunc Pro Tunc which adds the requirement of sex offender registration. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Blake pled guilty to the offense of indecency with a child by contact and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ยง 21.11 (West 2011). He also waived his right to appeal. The trial court did not give Blake permission to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Further, we note that Blake was fully admonished in writing, a document which he signed and initialed each paragraph, of his requirement to register as a sex offender. Thus, any failure to note the sex offender registration requirement in the initial judgment was a clerical error. See Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (corrections to the record are limited to clerical errors). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2); 44.3. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed February 20, 2014 Do not publish [CR25] A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment or order of this Court is rendered. TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. If the appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, a petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days after either the day the court of appeals judgment was rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by the court of appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). 1 Blake v. State Page 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.
