In re Adam Michael Koehnke Appeal from 216th Judicial District Court of Kerr County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00735-CR IN RE Adam Michael KOEHNKE Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 6, 2019 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On October 21, 2019, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. Relator contends the trial court accepted his plea on October 19, 2017 and assessed punishment at five years’ confinement. Relator asserts he recently filed a Motion for Release and Discharge based on earned good-time and work-time credit. Relator states he wants this court to “correct the trial court’s failure,” although he does not specifically state the nature of the trial court’s failure. In his prayer for relief, relator asks this court to “grant relief and discharge . . . immediately.” We deny the petition. This proceeding arises out of Cause No. A17632 & A17633, styled The State of Texas v. Adam Michael Koehnke, pending in the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas, the Honorable N. Keith Williams presiding. 1 04-19-00735-CR DISCUSSION To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly-filed and timely-presented motion. See In re State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Although we have jurisdiction to direct a trial court to exercise its discretion, we are not permitted to tell the trial court how to rule on a pending matter. See, e.g., Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“The trial court’s judicial discretion extends . . . to its decision how to rule after it considers a motion properly before it, and an appeals court may not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to rule a certain way on that motion.”). Therefore, we cannot compel the trial court to rule in a certain way on any motion filed by relator. Accordingly, relator is not entitled to the relief sought and the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 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.
