In re Andrew Arroyo Appeal from County Court at Law No. 6 of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00651-CR IN RE ANDREW ARROYO Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 25, 2017 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED MOTION FOR LEAVE DENIED AS MOOT Relator Andrew Arroyo filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial court improperly denied his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. Relator asserts the trial court erred because he is entitled to credit for time served on his sentence. A defendant is entitled to mandamus relief upon denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc when he can show he is “indisputably” entitled to the requested jail-time credit. See In re Brown, 343 S.W.3d 803, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Relator has not provided this court with a copy of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, the judgment of conviction, or any record supporting his claim for relief. Based on the insufficient record before us, we cannot determine whether it is “absolutely indisputable” that relator is entitled 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 528679, styled The State of Texas v. Andrew Arroyo, pending in the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Wayne A. Christian presiding. 04-17-00651-CR to the jail-time credit he seeks. Therefore, relator has not established he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a pro se motion for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus. Relator is not required to seek leave of court to file a petition for writ of mandamus; therefore, the motion for leave is denied as moot. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Do not publish -2-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.