In re Shane Matthew Buchel Appeal from 24th District Court of De Witt County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NUMBER 13-18-00510-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE SHANE MATTHEW BUCHEL On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa 1 Shane Matthew Buchel, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause 2 through which he contends that the trial court erred by failing to “consolidate restitution.” Buchel argues that the trial court incorrectly allowed the collection of restitution for multiple cases according to each individual judgment and its corresponding order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account cases, even though 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 15-11-12,315 in the 24th District Court of DeWitt County, Texas. The respondent in this original proceeding is the Honorable Kemper Stephen Williams. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2. 2 the restitution was ordered in connection with concurrent sentences. This Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the State of Texas, acting by and through the District Attorney for DeWitt County, Texas. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a),(b). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re Shane Matthew Buchel, No. 13-18-00509-CR, 2018 WL ___, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 6, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication), available at http: //www.search.txcourts.gov/case.aspx?cn=13-18-00509-CR&coa=coa13. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d). We likewise deny Buchel’s motion for nihil dicit judgment. LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 6th day of December, 2018. 2

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.