Opinion
NO. 09-21-00017-CR
02-10-2021
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.
"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Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.