From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Cantu

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Oct 14, 2009
No. 04-09-00527-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 14, 2009)

Opinion

No. 04-09-00527-CR

Delivered and Filed: October 14, 2009.

Original Mandamus Proceeding. Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied.

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 07-1793-CR, pending in the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable Gary L. Steel presiding.

Sitting: SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice MARIALYN BARNARD, Justice.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


On August 24, 2009, relator Luis Cantu filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court's failure to dismiss the charges against him in compliance with the "Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act." The disposition of an interstate detainer is governed by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.14 (Vernon 2006) (Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act). Article III of the Act establishes the procedure to be followed when a prisoner seeks a final disposition of an outstanding indictment, information, or complaint. See id. Art. 51.14, art. III (Vernon 2006). Relator alleges that he filed the "relevant documents" pursuant to the IADA on November 6, 2008. However, we cannot determine from this record whether the appropriate procedure was followed in transmitting relator's documents to the court and whether the trial court received all of the documentation required by the Act. See id. Art. 51.14, art. III, (a), (b) (Vernon 2006). Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).


Summaries of

In re Cantu

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Oct 14, 2009
No. 04-09-00527-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 14, 2009)
Case details for

In re Cantu

Case Details

Full title:IN RE Luis CANTU

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Oct 14, 2009

Citations

No. 04-09-00527-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 14, 2009)

Citing Cases

In re Lopez

See id. art. 51.14, art. III(a), (b). Consequently, we cannot conclude that the trial court has abused its…

IN RE IVEY

An inmate is not entitled to mandamus relief dismissing the charges against him under the IAD if he fails to…