In re Christopher Medina Appeal from 264th District Court of Bell County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-17-00100-CV In re Christopher Medina ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Christopher Medina has filed a document, which this Court filed as a petition for writ of mandamus, requesting assistance in obtaining good-time credit against a two-year statejail sentence. See Tex. R. App. P. 52. Some of the documents attached by Medina reference HB 2649, which amended article 42.12, section 15(h) of the code of criminal procedure and explained how a defendant convicted of a state-jail felony might be awarded “diligent participation credit” against his sentence. See Act of May 24, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 542, § 1, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 1331, 1331-32 (codified at Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 15(h)); see also id. § 2, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws at 1332 (HB 2649 only applies to person confined in state jail for offense committed on or after September 1, 2011). However, article 42.12 was repealed effective January 1, 2017, and the provisions related to such credit are now located in article 42A.559. See Act of May 26, 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., ch. 770, §§ 1.01, 3.01, 2015 Tex. Gen. Laws 2321, 2355-56, 2395. Under article 42A.559, a defendant confined in a state jail is entitled to credit for time served in a county jail between arrest and sentencing and for time spent in a substance-abuse facility or other court-ordered residential program. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.559(c). A judge may also award a defendant in state jail credit for time spent “diligently participat[ing] in any educational, vocational, treatment, or work program,” based on a report provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Id. art. 42A.559(e), (f). However, such credits are “a privilege and not a right.” Id. art. 42A.559(f). To be entitled to mandamus relief, a criminal defendant must show that the act he seeks to compel is ministerial and not discretionary and that he lacks any other adequate remedy. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Medina seeks assistance in obtaining credits that are “a privilege and not a right.” See Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. art. 42A.559(f). Therefore, he has not shown that the trial court has failed to fulfill a ministerial duty. See Young, 326 S.W.3d at 210. We deny Medina’s petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). __________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Goodwin Filed: May 4, 2017 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.
