Court's Failure to Comply a Mandatory Duty Consequences
In State v. Ross, 953 S.W.2d 748, 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), the court reviewed an order granting a motion nunc pro tunc and held that the failure of a trial court to do an act that is mandatory is a clerical error as opposed to an error of judicial reasoning.
The court reasoned that because the action was mandatory in nature, a writ of mandamus could be sought to require a judge to alter his written judgment.
See Ex parte Poe, 751 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (holding in connection with a judgment nunc pro tunc that when a court has no discretion on a matter-when it is, in other words, a mandatory duty-then the failure of the court to comply is considered a clerical error since no judicial reasoning is required).