In re Robert James Campbell Appeal from 232nd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued September 1, 2020. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00270-CR ——————————— IN RE ROBERT JAMES CAMPBELL, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Robert James Campbell has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, alleging that the trial court failed to rule on his motions for nunc pro tunc judgment.1 Campbell bears the burden of showing his entitlement to mandamus relief. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, 1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Robert James Campbell, cause number 05861900101F - 3, in the 232nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Josh Hill presiding. orig. proceeding). To be entitled to relief in a criminal case, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law and that the act he seeks to compel is ministerial. See In re Mendoza, 467 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding). To establish his entitlement to mandamus relief for the trial court’s alleged failure to rule, Campbell must establish a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act, that he demanded performance, and that the trial court refused the request. See id. Campbell has not provided a record sufficient to show his entitlement to relief. The attachment to his petition appears to be a copy of a request for a nunc pro tunc, but it contains no file stamp establishing that it was filed in the trial court. Absent proof of a properly-filed motion, a demand for performance, and a refusal by the trial court, Campbell has not established his entitlement to relief for the failure to rule. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k); 52.7(a). We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Countiss. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 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.
