Opinion
12-24-00012-CR
02-22-2024
DO NOT PUBLISH
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Kirkland Warren, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to seek a writ compelling Respondent to conduct a new punishment hearing in accordance with this Court's judgment of September 22, 2022. This Court remanded Relator's case for a new punishment hearing because of an inaccurate punishment record. See Warren v. State, Nos. 12-22-00005-CR & 12- 22-00006-CR, 2022 WL 4394559, at *1, 4-5 (Tex. App.-Tyler Sept. 22, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The online Smith County records indicate that a bench trial was held on December 8, 2022, and Relator was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. And Relator's appendix contains a nunc pro tunc judgment dated December 8, in which Relator was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Thus, it appears that a punishment hearing has occurred. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Respondent is the Honorable Austin R. Jackson, Judge of the 114th District Court in Smith County, Texas. The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.
We also note that on January 29, 2024, the Clerk of this Court informed Relator that his petition fails to comply with appellate Rules 52.3(a)-(h) and (j)-(k) and 52.7. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3 (form and contents of petition); Tex.R.App.P. 52.7 (record). The notice warned that the petition would be referred to this Court for dismissal unless Relator provided the record and an amended petition on or before February 8. Relator did not file a record or an amended petition.
JUDGMENT
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Kirkland Warren; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-24-00012-CR and the defendant in trial court cause number 114-1929-20, formerly pending on the docket of the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on January 29, 2024, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby denied.