in Re: William Browder ( 2016 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§
IN RE: No. 08-16-00217-CR
§
WILLIAM BROWDER, AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
§
Relator. IN MANDAMUS
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, William Browder, has filed a mandamus petition asking that we order the 109th
District Court of Andrews County, Texas, to rule on a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in
cause number 2496. We deny mandamus relief.
To obtain mandamus relief, Relator must demonstrate that he does not have an adequate
remedy at law and that the act he seeks to compel is ministerial. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth
Judicial District Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). To be entitled
to a writ of mandamus compelling a trial court to consider and rule on a properly filed motion,
Relator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was
asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable
time. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding); see In
re Layton, 257 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding). Relator has
attached what appears to be a carbon copy of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in which he
asserts he is entitled to time credit for two periods of incarceration on pre-revocation warrants.
The motion is not file-stamped and Relator has not provided any evidence of the filing date.
Further, there is no evidence that Relator asked Respondent to rule on the motion or that
Respondent has failed or refused to rule on the motion. Finding that Relator has failed to
establish his entitlement to mandamus relief, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice
August 31, 2016
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
-2-