Court Opinion

ID: 2925752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:26:31.984445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:36.063796
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-08-096-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 Yañez, Rodriguez, and Vela
                    Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      On February 27, 2008, relator, Gilberto Rodriguez, filed a petition for writ of

mandamus, in which he requested this Court to direct the Respondent, the Honorable

Nelva Gonzales Ramos, presiding judge of the 347th Judicial District Court of Nueces

County, Texas, to order the court reporter to make available for purchase a transcript of

his sentencing hearing in trial court cause number 02-CR-2531-H, styled State of Texas

v. Gilberto Rodriguez.

      This Court requested a response, and on March 25, 2008, the State, acting through
the office of the Nueces County District Attorney, filed a Supplemental Response.

Attached to the State’s response are copies of the pertinent portion of the reporter’s record

in trial court number 02-CR-2531-H. The certificate reflects that a copy of the State’s

Supplemental Response was mailed to the relator.

       In his petition for writ of mandamus, relator complains that the Respondent orally

pronounced a sentence of seven years in cause number 02-CR-2531-H, but that the

written judgment reflects a sentence of eight years. We have reviewed the pertinent

portion of the reporter’s record, which reflects that the trial court orally pronounced a

sentence of eight years in cause number 02-CR-2531-H.

       Because the State’s Supplemental Response both affords relator the relief that he

sought, and establishes that his claim is without merit, we deny relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus.

                                                   Per Curiam

Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 27th day of March, 2008.

                                              2