In re Robert James Guidroz--Appeal from 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00618-CR IN RE Robert GUIDROZ Original Mandamus Proceeding1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Alma L. Lopez, Chief Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 17, 2008 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Robert Guidroz seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to rule on his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc addressing jail credit. This court is authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to consider and rule on a nunc pro tunc motion addressing presentence jail credit. Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); In re Isbell, No. 04-06-00558-CV, 2006 WL 3206075, at *1 (Tex. App. San Antonio, November 8, 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). However, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish a right to mandamus relief. See TEX . R. APP . P. 52.7(a) ( Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator s claim 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 92-1004-CR, styled The State of Texas v. Robert Guidroz, filed in the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable Dwight E. Peschel presiding. 04-08-00618-CR for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding ); see also TEX . R. APP . P. 52.3(j)(1)(A). Here, Guidroz has not provided this court with a copy of his motion or any other documents to support his claim for relief. Nor has Guidroz established that the trial court has been made aware of his motion or has expressly refused to rule on it. See In re Isbell, 2006 WL 3206075, at *2 (conditionally granting mandamus relief when the record showed the trial court was made aware of the nunc pro tunc motion but nevertheless failed to consider and rule on it). We conclude that Guidroz has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition is denied. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.