Court Opinion

ID: 2925090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:14:39.679332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:33.580382
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-08-00479-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________
 
IN RE GILBERTO RODRIGUEZ

____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela 

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam (1)

 
	On August 11, 2008, relator, Gilberto Rodriguez, pro se, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to give relator credit on his sentence for the
time that relator served from the time of his arrest and confinement until he was sentenced. 
The trial court has the authority to correct the omission of presentence jail credit through
judgment nunc pro tunc.  See Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App.
2004).  Mandamus is available to compel the trial court to respond to a nunc pro tunc
motion for presentence jail credit.  Id. at 149.  In this case, however, the petition generally
fails to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3.   Further, the relator has not
shown that he is entitled to the relief sought or that his motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment
awaited disposition for an unreasonable length of time under the circumstances.  See Ex
parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134-35 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). 
Moreover, relator failed to demonstrate that the act sought to be compelled is purely
ministerial and the relator has a clear and indisputable right to relief.  See State ex rel. Hill
v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). 
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. 

								PER CURIAM

Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
 
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this 14th day of August, 2008.

1. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so."); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).