From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Newsome

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Sep 5, 2012
NO. 09-12-00317-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 5, 2012)

Opinion

NO. 09-12-00317-CR

09-05-2012

IN RE ROBERT JEROME NEWSOME


Original Proceeding


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Robert Jerome Newsome seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc order granting him additional jail time credit. Relator alleges that he filed a motion to correct his pre-sentence jail time on April 21, 2011, and that the trial court has not ruled on his motion.

Mandamus may issue to compel a trial court to rule on a motion that has been pending before the court for a reasonable period of time. See In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). However, to obtain mandamus relief for the trial court's failure to rule on such a motion, a relator must establish that (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time, (2) relator requested a ruling on the motion, and (3) the trial court refused to rule. In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding). Merely filing a motion with the trial court clerk does not constitute a request that the trial court rule on the motion. Id. A relator must provide a record establishing that his motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time. In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (Relator must file with the petition a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to his claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.).

Newsome did not provide a copy of the motion, and he does not provide documentation of what efforts he made to obtain a ruling from the trial court on the motion. In addition, Newsome does not provide documents supporting his alleged entitlement to additional jail-time credit. See In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d at 861; In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d at 168; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1). Therefore, Newsome has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.


Summaries of

In re Newsome

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Sep 5, 2012
NO. 09-12-00317-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 5, 2012)
Case details for

In re Newsome

Case Details

Full title:IN RE ROBERT JEROME NEWSOME

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Sep 5, 2012

Citations

NO. 09-12-00317-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 5, 2012)