Opinion
05-22-00552-CV 05-22-00553-CV
07-01-2022
IN RE LAFAYETTE HURDLE, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F84-82252-QU & F84-73567-QU
Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KEN MOLBERG, JUSTICE
LaFayette Hurdle has filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Dallas County District Clerk. Relator contends the district clerk has failed to perform a ministerial duty to transmit, to either this Court or the court of criminal appeals, his motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment seeking additional time credit on his sentences, any response filed to the motion, and a certification showing the date the trial court made findings on the motion. We deny relief.
If relator desires to challenge the trial court's denial of a time credit, he would need to file a petition for writ of mandamus to this Court naming the trial court judge as respondent. See Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (explaining process for challenging sentence time credit).
This Court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directed at the district clerk unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221(a), (b); In re Shugart, 528 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding). Nothing in the mandamus record shows mandamus is required to enforce our jurisdiction.
The record does not include a certified or sworn copy of the motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment nor any documentation, such as a docket sheet, showing whether a response was filed or a ruling was issued. The record also does not include any documents that would establish the district clerk had a ministerial duty to transmit the motion and other documents to this Court or the court of criminal appeals as relator contends.
Relator bears the burden to provide the Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). On the record presented, relator has not established that mandamus relief against the district clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Shugart, 528 S.W.3d at 796.
Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.