In re Eluterio Gutierrez--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Annotate this Case
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-04-00144-CV
IN RE Eluterio GUTIERREZ
Original Mandamus Proceeding (1)

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 17, 2004

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On February 27, 2004, relator, Eluterio Gutierrez, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, presiding judge of the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, to credit him for time served. According to Gutierrez, he has filed three motions requesting that Judge Luitjen enter a judgment nunc pro tunc correcting the amount of time Gutierrez served. (2) There is no indication, however, in the mandamus petition that Gutierrez exhausted his administrative remedies before filing his motions in the trial court. Section 501.0081 of the Texas Government Code sets forth the proper procedure to be followed in resolving complaints regarding time-served credit. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 501.0081 (Vernon Supp. 2004). Because Gutierrez has not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, we DENY his petition for writ of mandamus. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1. This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2002-CR-8194W and 2000-CR-0153W, styled The State of Texas v. Eluterio Gutierrez, pending in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mark R. Luitjen presiding.

2. To the extent Gutierrez complains that Judge Luitjen has failed to rule on his motions, we note that there is no indication in the mandamus petition that, after filing the motion, Gutierrez requested Judge Luitjen to rule on the motion or otherwise did anything to bring the motion to Judge Luitjen's attention. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.