1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-15-00247-CR

____________________

IN RE JAMES WILLIAMS

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

In his petition asking that we issue a writ of mandamus, James Williams 

requests that we issue a writ compelling the judge of the Criminal District Court of 

Jefferson County, Texas to rule on a motion that he filed in that court, requesting 

that court to exercise its discretion to consider and grant his request for shock 

probation. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 6 (West Supp. 2014).1

Because the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over Williams’s case when he 

filed his motion, we deny his writ of mandamus.

 1

Because any amendments to article 42.12 do not impact our decision in this 

proceeding, we cite to the current version of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure.
2

Williams filed his motion for shock probation after we resolved the appeal in 

his criminal case. See Williams v. State, No. 09-13-00489-CR, 2014 Tex. App. 

LEXIS 11597 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 22, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). In that 

appeal, we modified the final judgment by deleting the trial court’s restitution 

award because an award of restitution was not orally pronounced as part of the 

judgment at sentencing, but we affirmed Williams’s aggravated robbery 

conviction. According to the clerk’s record in that case,2 Williams’s sentence was 

imposed and executed on October 4, 2013.3 The record Williams filed with his 

petition in this case shows that he filed his request for shock probation on April 9, 

2015. 

We note our jurisdiction over mandamus proceedings involving complaints

of a trial court’s failure or refusal to hear motions. See State ex rel. Hill v. Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. 

proceeding); In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. 

proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, 

orig. proceeding). Although we have jurisdiction over Williams’s petition, the trial 

court, given Williams’s delay in filing his motion after the trial court acted to 

 2

We may take judicial notice of matters contained within other appellate 

cases. See Tex. R. Evid. 201.

3

A defendant’s sentence is executed when the defendant is actually 

incarcerated. See Bailey v. State, 160 S.W.3d 11, 14 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 
3

execute his sentence, did not have jurisdiction to act on his motion. Section 6 of 

article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure extends a trial court’s 

jurisdiction for 180 days after a judgment is executed to allow a trial court to act on 

a motion seeking shock probation. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 

6(a); Bailey, 160 S.W.3d 11, 14 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (“[A] trial court 

loses jurisdiction over the case 180 days after sentencing under Article 42.12 § 

6(a)[.]”). In Williams’s case, the trial court lost jurisdiction over any requests for 

shock probation in April 2014, which is approximately a year before he filed his 

motion. 

Because Williams filed his motion over a year after the trial court lost 

jurisdiction over his request for shock probation, the trial court lacked jurisdiction 

to consider his motion. See id. Accordingly, the trial court was under no ministerial 

duty to act on the motion that Williams filed. See State ex rel. Hill, 34 S.W.3d at 

927. We deny Williams’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

 PER CURIAM

 

Submitted on July 14, 2015

Opinion Delivered July 15, 2015

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.