Court Opinion

ID: 9947196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-03 09:17:16.262826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:10.565337
License: Public Domain

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed February 22,
2024.

                                       In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                 NO. 14-23-00682-CR

                     IN RE TODD W. ALTSCHUL, Relator

                           ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                            WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                               149th District Court
                             Brazoria County, Texas
                           Trial Court Cause No. 26672

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On September 15, 2023, relator Todd W. Altschul filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App.
P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to vacate and set aside the August 22,
2023 order denying relator’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, signed by the
Honorable Jessica Pulcher, presiding judge of the 149th District Court of Brazoria
County, as well as to correct and modify nunc pro tunc judgments of August 28,
2019.

        To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no
adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks is a
ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel.
Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

        “A nunc pro tunc judgment is an appealable order under Article 44.02 [of
the Code of Criminal Procedure] if the appeal is timely filed.” Blanton v. State, 369
S.W.3d 894, 904 (Tex. 2012). Mandamus relief is not available to challenge an
appealable order. See Alvarez v. Eighth Court of Appeals of Tex., 977 S.W.2d 590,
592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The failure to timely pursue an adequate legal remedy
forecloses mandamus relief. See In re Robertson, No. 14–16–01013–CV, 2017 WL
506807, at *2 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 7, 2017, orig. proceeding) (per
curiam) (mem. op.).

        Relator has not shown that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress the
alleged harm from the alleged errors in the nunc pro tunc judgments. Therefore,
relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See State ex rel.
Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of
mandamus. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                          2