Court Opinion

ID: 9948460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 10:13:29.668569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:42.524508
License: Public Domain

In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                    No. 07-24-00084-CR

                         IN RE MICHAEL DENTON, RELATOR

                                ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

                                    February 29, 2024
                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
                     Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

       Relator, Michael Denton, an inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has

filed a petition requesting that a writ of mandamus issue against the “31st District court,

respondent.”   Relator seeks our order compelling Respondent “to credit the correct

ammount (sic) of pre[-]sentence jail credit as Texas law and statutes require. Also, to

award [R]elator with the proper ammount (sic) of good time and parole credits that will

reflect an accurate calculation towards his final sentence.” The supporting documents

accompanying Relator’s petition do not include a written order signed by a district judge

denying Relator the requested relief, nor does the record establish conclusively that a

judge has refused to rule on Relator’s request for relief.
       For several reasons, we deny Relator’s request for mandamus relief. The petition

does not identify a specific judge as the respondent. A petition for mandamus requests

an order directed personally to the respondent judge. In re Solis, No. 07-08-00370-CV,

2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7529, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 3, 2008, orig. proceeding)

(per curiam order); see In re Roseland Oil & Gas, Inc., 68 S.W.3d 784, 786 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 2001, orig. proceeding) (“mandamus is personal to the judge”); TEX. R. APP. P.

52.2, 52.3(a), (d)(2). Granting mandamus relief is not appropriate against one judge for

what another did or did not do. In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227, 228

n.1 (Tex. 2008) (citing State v. Olsen, 163 Tex. 449, 360 S.W.2d 402, 403 (1962) (“A writ

of mandamus will not lie against a successor judge in the absence of a refusal by him to

grant the relief Relator seeks.”)).

       Further, a petition for writ of mandamus must comply with the requirements of Rule

52 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Relator’s petition is deficient in several

regards, including a failure to include the certification required by Appellate Rule 52.3(j),

and certified or sworn portions of the relevant record, as required by Appellate Rules

52.3(k) (Appendix) and 52.7(a) (Record). TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j),(k); 52.7(a). Relator also

failed to file a certificate of service showing he mailed a copy of the mandamus petition

to a Respondent and the Real Party in Interest. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(a), (d).

       Among the items Relator filed with his petition was a document entitled “Nunc Pro

Tunc Entry for Pre-Sentence Jail Time Credit.” It purports to bear the district clerk’s

December 6, 2022 file stamp. To the extent this document was intended a request of the

district judge for an order granting some or all of the relief Relator now seeks, there is no

indication this request was called to the judge’s attention, and (1) the judge made a ruling

                                             2
adverse to Relator, or (2) the judge, although aware of the motion, refused to rule. That

a motion is on file with the clerk, standing alone, does not satisfy these requirements. A

trial court has no legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act that is never called to its

attention.   In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig.

proceeding); In re Metoyer, No. 07-07-00506-CR, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 243, at *4 n.2,

(Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 14, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for

publication). “A court cannot be faulted for doing nothing when it is or was unaware of

the need to act.” In re Cox, No. 07-12-00525-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 30, at *3 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo Jan. 3, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (cleaned up).

       We deny Relator’s petition.

                                                       Lawrence M. Doss
                                                            Justice

Do not publish.

                                            3