Court Opinion

ID: 2925091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:14:41.851906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:29.966691
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 Curiam1

        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

        1
         See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).
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Do not publish.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.

                                               2