In re William Isaac Hoff Appeal from 24th District Court of Victoria County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-16-00669-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE WILLIAM ISAAC HOFF On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relator William Isaac Hoff filed a pro se “notice of mandamus” in the above cause on December 8, 2016. Relator seeks to compel the trial court to rule on relator’s motion for nunc pro tunc judgment and to grant that motion. To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. First, the petition for writ of mandamus fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Second, relator has not demonstrated that the respondent expressly refused to rule on relator’s motion for nunc pro tunc judgment or that an unreasonable amount of time has passed since the motion was filed. See In re Dimas, 88 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); accord O'Connor v. First Ct. of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Third, an appellate court may not direct the trial court to make a specific ruling on a pending motion. See In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 9th day of December, 2016. 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.
