Court Opinion

ID: 9949207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-09 06:25:54.048626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:50.321743
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed March 7, 2024

                                       In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                     __________

                              No. 11-24-00046-CR
                                     __________

                     IN RE TIMOTHY PATRICK LEE

                                Original Proceeding

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Relator, Timothy Patrick Lee, has filed this original proceeding pro se
seeking to compel the 106th District Court of Gaines County to issue a ruling
and grant Relator’s motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment concerning jail time credit.
      To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must establish that: (1) the
act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary
or judicial decision; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the
alleged harm. In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig.
proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ
of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of
Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig.
proceeding).
It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus
relief. See id.; In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2021, orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant
for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he
seeks.”).
      Additionally, the relator must provide a record sufficient to establish his right
to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding); see also In re Fears, No. 05-24-00154-CV, 2024 WL 748077, at *1
(Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 23, 2024) (orig. proceeding). This includes satisfying the
requirement that “[e]very statement of fact in the petition must be supported by
citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3. The petition must be accompanied by record that includes “a certified or sworn
copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed
in any underlying proceeding.” Id. R. 52.7.
      Relator’s petition is insufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief.
Relator did not file a record to accompany his petition. The appendix to his petition
includes a handwritten motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment, but no file stamp or
other indication that it was properly filed with the district court. Moreover, it does
not include a judgment and other documentation to show that the time credited to
Relator was inaccurate. The petition is devoid of any evidence establishing that
Relator’s motion was filed and properly presented for a ruling, and Relator failed to

                                           2
show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ
of mandamus.

                                               JOHN M. BAILEY
                                               CHIEF JUSTICE

March 7, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                         3