Court Opinion

ID: 9380431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-18 06:08:50.461545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:24.984996
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed March 16, 2023

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                 Nos. 11-23-00039-CR & 11-23-00040-CR
                               __________

                          IN RE OSIEL ALVAREZ

                         Original Mandamus Proceedings

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Relator, Osiel Alvarez, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus relating to a
previous felony conviction for aggravated robbery—trial court cause no. A-42,672
(our Cause No. 11-23-00039-CR)—and a previous felony conviction for aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon—trial court cause no. B-41,501 (our Cause No. 11-23-
00040-CR). Relator requests that we issue a writ of mandamus to the Honorable
Denn Whalen, judge of the 70th District Court of Ector County, to require him to
enter a ruling on a motion for nunc pro tunc, in both trial court cause numbers. We
dismiss these mandamus proceedings for want of jurisdiction.
      Relator asserts that he mailed the motion for nunc pro tunc to the district clerk
on July 8, 2022, and that it was filed by the district clerk on July 12, 2022. Upon
receiving and filing Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and the attachments
thereto, the clerk of this court contacted the district clerk of Ector County to inquire
as to whether the trial court had ruled on Relator’s motion for nunc pro tunc. The
district clerk subsequently provided this court with a copy of an order signed by
Judge Whalen on July 18, 2022. In that order, Judge Whalen denied Relator’s
motion for nunc pro tunc in trial court cause nos. A-42,672 and B-41,501. Because
Judge Whalen has already ruled on Relator’s motion for nunc pro tunc, Relator has
received all of the relief that he requested in his petition for writ of mandamus.
Therefore, these mandamus proceedings are moot. We have no jurisdiction to decide
a moot controversy. Guardianship of Fairley, 650 S.W.3d 372, 379 (Tex. 2022);
Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999).
      Accordingly, we dismiss these mandamus proceedings for want of
jurisdiction.

                                                      PER CURIAM

March 16, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                           2