## NUMBER 13 - 21 - 00 416 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE MARCUS ROBERT ARCHER

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Ju stices Hinojosa and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa 1
Pro se relator Marcus Robert Archer has filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which he seeks to compel the trial court to rule on relator’s motion for nunc pro tunc judgment . Relator contends that he did not receive all of the jail time credit to which he was entitled, and he filed a motion for nunc pro tunc judgment to correc t the error, however, the trial court has not ruled on that motion.

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2 To be entitled to mandamus relie f, the relator must establish both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision

a nd that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm

. In re Meza , 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris , 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) ; In re McCann , 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both requirements , then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied

. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. C t. of Apps

. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding)

. It is the relator ’ s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210 ; In re Pena , 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding ) ; see also Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) ( “ Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ” ). In addition to other requirements, the relator mu st include a statement of facts and a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record . See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.3 (governing the form and contents for a petition) . The rel ator must file an appendix and record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record)

.3 The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not established his entitlement to the relief sought

. See In re Harris , 491 S.W.3d at 334; In re McCann , 422 S.W.3d at 704 ; State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210

. R elator has failed to (1) include a statement of facts supported by citations to competent evidence included in the appendix or record , (2) provide a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record , and (3) file an appendix and record sufficient to support the claim for relief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.3 ; id. R. 52.3(k)

. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus

.

LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice
Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 ( b ). Delivered and filed on the 3r d day of December, 2021.