in Re: Danny Doan ( 2006 )

NUMBER 13-06-609-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: DANNY DOAN On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza Memorandum Opinion ⁽¹⁾  

Relator, Danny Doan, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on October 27, 2006. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.

Through his petition for writ of mandamus, relator seeks to compel the Honorable Craig Estlinbaum, presiding judge of the 130th Judicial District Court of Matagorda County, Texas, to credit him for time served. According to relator, he has filed a motion requesting that Judge Estlinbaum enter a judgment nunc pro tunc correcting the amount of time relator served, but the trial court had not ruled on the motion at the time relator filed the writ application.

An inmate may not file an application for a writ of habeas corpus to receive such time-credits until and unless he has complied with the requirements outlined in section 501.0081 of the Texas Government Code. ⁽²⁾ "That section specifically requires an inmate to file a dispute resolution request with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Time Credit Dispute Resolution Office and to receive a written decision from that office before he files an application for a writ of habeas corpus, unless the department has not responded to his request within 180 days or unless the inmate is within 180 days of being released on parole." ⁽³⁾ Relator apparently has not utilized this available remedy.

Because relator has not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, we DENY his petition for writ of mandamus. ⁽⁴⁾  

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Memorandum opinion delivered and filed

this the 31st day of October, 2006.

1.

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8 (d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2.

Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.0081 (Vernon 2006).

3.

Ex Parte Shepherd, 65 S.W.3d 673, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Cochran, J., concurring) (emphasis in original).

4.

See Ex Parte Stokes, 15 S.W.3d 532, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).