Court Opinion

ID: 4659842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-12 08:15:07.806474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:57.680148
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-21-00017-CR
                               __________________

                       IN RE JOHN ROBERT MANNING

__________________________________________________________________

                           Original Proceeding
           435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
          Trial Cause No. 13-09-09713-CR (count 1 and count 2)
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a petition for a writ of mandamus John Robert Manning asks this Court to

compel the trial court to rule on a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Manning refers to the case by the appeal numbers this Court assigned to his appeal

from trial court cause number 13-09-09713-CR (count 1 and count 2). See generally

Manning v. State, Nos. 09-13-00533-CR and 09-13-00534-CR, 2015 WL 8473347,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 9, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for

publication). Our mandate issued on June 16, 2016.

                                          1
       “When a conviction has been affirmed on appeal and the mandate has issued,

general jurisdiction is not restored in the trial court.” State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d

592, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The trial court may correct a judgment nunc pro

tunc if the corrective action is ministerial. See Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147,

148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). But a trial court “does not have a duty to rule on free-

floating motions unrelated to currently pending actions. In fact, it has no jurisdiction

to rule on a motion when it has no plenary jurisdiction coming from an associated

case.” In re Cash, No. 06-04-00045-CV, 2004 WL 769473, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana Apr. 13, 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

      To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that he

has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe,

98 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Relator has not shown that he is entitled

to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                            PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 9, 2021
Opinion Delivered February 10, 2021
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

                                           2