In English v. State, 592 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), a visiting judge sitting for the judge who presided over the defendant's trial signed an order granting the defendant's amended motion for new trial. Id. at 955. Three days later, the visiting judge wrote on the face of this order that it "was signed inadvertently and by mistake and the order was not intended to have any legal effect." Id. At a hearing, the following day before the regular trial judge, the visiting judge testified that the order was among a group of papers that had been handed to him (while on the bench) for his signature, he did not intend to grant the defendant a new trial, he knew nothing about the defendant's case, no hearing had been held on the motion for new trial, and he had been under the impression that he was signing an order granting leave to file the amended motion. Id. The regular trial judge found that the order granting the new trial was void. Id. The defendant challenged this ruling, citing Matthews v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 316, 50 S.W. 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 1899). Id. The court of criminal appeals ruled that Matthews was distinguishable: In Matthews it appears that the trial court granted the defendant's motion for new trial, then attempted to set aside its order because it had been under a "misapprehension of the evidence complained of by defendant in his motion for new trial." The instant case is distinguishable. The court in this case did not knowingly grant the motion for new trial and then decide to retract its decision. The court was not even aware that it was granting a motion for new trial when it signed the order. No hearing was held in this case; no evidence was adduced from which the court could have knowingly granted a new trial. The signing of an order form is not all there is to granting a new trial. Further, the court's error in this case does not strike us as a judicial error, as certainly was the case in Matthews. The error here is more akin to clerical error, which can be corrected. Id. 955-56. In clarifying its holding, the court in English overruled Matthews to the extent that it could be construed to conflict with its holding. Id. at 956.