In re Gandara

2 Citing cases

  1. Clubb v. State

    NO. 03-20-00183-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 15, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. Instead, the appropriate remedy is to file either an application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court if alleging a constitutional violation, see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072, § 3(c), or a petition for writ of mandamus in the appellate court if alleging an abuse of discretion by the trial court, see In re Gandara, No. 08-17-00053-CR, 2017 WL 2822514, at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso June 30, 2017, orig. proceeding) (op.). /s/_________

  2. Kainer v. State

    No. 07-18-00203-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 12, 2018)

    A trial court has discretion to determine the appropriate period of community supervision for an eligible defendant provided the period falls within the range permitted by statute. In re Gandara, No. 08-17-00053-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6042, at *7 (Tex. App.—El Paso June 30, 2017, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) (citing Mayes v. State, 353 S.W.3d 790, 795-96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)). However, to extend a period of community supervision, there must be a showing of good cause made to the trial court.