in Re Calixto Garcia

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 2, 2015
Docket01-15-00839-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Calixto Garcia (in Re Calixto Garcia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re Calixto Garcia, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Cofi No . .. . '.. _ It Mo. 'toto&S

in re CAL0CT6 GARCIA fa/Jar / FIRST COufTTOF/lPmLS den. em Hart j ttmmti, ims RtSPbMtDT J FILED IN 1ST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS

APPuc/moN for mr of mandamus oct o2 2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRlNB

To Ik tionorabk Justice, oftit first Court6fAppeals: - Comes Poo) Colixta barda., relator7 andtiles tins application tor writofmandamus asking thi'6 Court io difecr tit presidingjudge, tftk ZSOtii dibhittCourtel' Itarris Cauda fa Sel} hear and Cult en the, motion tor rdieffrom Ikjudomm -that had been properlu riledand presentedin triaJcourf cause, no. lO^MS. In Support if this application mill $hau) tit Court: J_ BACkGRdUfiiD; Calixk Garcia, ms Convicted\l'aggravated'assaulton

3 of IS A OuTYorWfiL COURT; Consideration ofamotionproperIg filed and hehrt a. triadCourtis ministerial Has, aaistriciCourt may he compellea Via. mandamus to consider andrate, on a, pending motion presentJ to tk Court. See fare Cliristensen 39Sutfdzsd CTexApp Amarillo 7m) tianoroik Brad Hart has adata to SeJ tie hearinq to ml on my motion for relief. Furthermore} •tit Corrections I've requested with rcaards -to Ik. Scaleneino aspms are (ht discretionary. Because, tie. dawk requires it, -fkjudge, has no discretion fa do btkefaoisc. Set hportt Pot 7sI Suizd 873 (lex Crim App 2608) DemitV. Stale, WSuJsd t>7& (TexApp Austin Zdt3). MCLliSM: Colrxta Garcia, woatdshou) Sere is no otitr adequate remedy al fate), and it another remedy may exist between tie relJor andrespondent, it mag prove fa k> uncertain, ineffective and ska), fflartover, it u)oJdnotprovide, tit Same, Smift and Sure, relief, eauailg Convenient, hemlicol and effective, as mondamus. See, Smith V. FloA 7Z8 SuJzd 7&4 note 13 CTex Crim App 1987). jl JufilsDiCTioH: Tfiis Court hasjurisdiction to issue, Ik writunder artidt SSection 6oftit Texas Canslitudion and Section ZZ. 22I tfIk. Government Code. Ihaut requested a. legal remedy witim tiit jurisdiction ofIk FirstCourtofAppeals —jurisdiclion mien 1haut invoked. (ti(l£R£FORC, Cdixto Gora'acprogs Ik Justice oflhis tionorahit Court woJJgrantmy motion for leave fa tilt and Ik. application for writofmandamus- t\nd direr] Ikjudgc of tit ZSOth district Court to Set, hear and rule on mmotion for relict inilhin &reasonable time . Submitted with Ik ildmosj Respect. tolixio (jorciou, rtlojof

i CCPTtFICATcL Of SCfWlCi: J, Colixia Quran hereby Certify thai aCopy tf tit's application for mil ifmandamus has been presentedfa Ik rlonarohk Bred Martin Cart af Ik District C(trk of Horrid Countu. Andfurther Cerlifq tiod aCopu of Ik Same has been deliveredkIk mitt tf Dtvon Andersen, bisiricl

Calixja vacua.

Hof IS COArVo It Ho. /d¥639sr

ih me' County ) couatof appcals OF f timid J FIRSTDISTRICTOF TOtAS

HFFIDAYIT6F CAISXW GARCIA miFICAllOU MCORPORATCD _

T, Calixfo Garcia*, Currently incarceratedad Ik JoL 6. Coiwaly unit^1373101_Karnes County, Kenedy Texas. Oo hereby uerifu, Scoear and affirm tial Ik intarmalian Conlainedin Ik forqaina application for writ ofmondtamas art factual alleqatians— trut and' Carreer la tit best ol md KnaidedgL— and' furtkf verify, Swear and affirm tlrd Ikpage6 from tk reporters record and documents attached art exoni Copies ofIk oriaina/s. Further} affiant South not'." Signed-this Sls/doy of September Zeis'.

Ca/ixto oara'a.) attiant

IMISMRM OCCIARATIOH

I, Codixfa Garcia hereby denurix under lit penally for perjury tint tit above affidavit id true and Correctas Signedand doled. Calixla Garcia, dahn 6. Connolly and 4l373IOl 899 Fm 63Z Kenedy, Texas 78(19

5 of IS Cameho. leasts

Cauxto Garcia mm mji) mma C6m flms ®t0% mtiG «to, *• **• *> <%?>. MommmicFmrnrnjuos/Arm-/^ ^ &7%: c/^6/7tevr fl/z#7?> 7me -mm'&m mtom mo mms 10 srmmzrW lotit tioMcMc Jueigt dftiie Court: Comes noa) Colixto Carcicu, defendant,n tils Cause, andask tie Courtto Correcttit rmdandmhjudamenfmit reflects tit Sentence pronouncedand shea* Compliance to slMscg refkemenh. In dappedthereofmil Shoo): 1 mmmQ: ^cMmsCoomledmlkZMDidridU lorlkt&nsc of amravaled assauhnupublic Semi TKe recordrefteds /hotJudge MpronouncediSentence d35yearn. Ofdnottrder the defendantto payCourtcod andMedto state Ik ream for mtodri/g restitution is requiredunder aitidt 1Z.6S7(L(CCP) CedtofCriminalProcedure, (' Refrtoattachments markedA\ bfer, £mtfenjudgmentlimcntcrcJ Showing 50yeoreastk termSf Sentence, miti U<**Court'Caski( Refer fa atUmhmarled6l

tie tnnilrnjudanient. Rales MdCivilProcedure and WAppdUc Procedure empmr Ik Judyc hcorrcd clerical ttitklen in tie recordsanyjudgment, in open Court, even after tie Coadsplenarypouyr expires. See Stole v. Us 859 twxdm, 309 (TaCmApo mf- lore Cherry zss SwsJ 328, 333 (Tex^rtmlm m). J^JflC fflioTAtfd ARC CLCRiCfiL: UlriHenjudgmeddoesnot rifled kdenct Ilxd urn Orally impend- Oisccepancu between orally imposed^entente, and'milkjadgrnentitiLClericolmistake. See Coffey v. Stole 979 Sioxd'3ZG (Tex Crim Hop ms) and, irio]Judge fading It do as Ik tw mandates._ Wo/Jicn ofamandatory ddy is aclerked mistake. See Ifale v. Rm tesmzJm CTex Crim fipp. 1997). A.... StWRlM /« fHsmr: RecordreU Judge Mlorally rmpmd Ssgeom^lkmhjdml'• thorn 60.

6cffS_ Judge Hilldidnotorally impost Court'costs_Iklurillenjudgmd'shorn $3K* Fudkc, Judge Pillfadedfa Stale on tk remrddy eft alesmt-ordering restitution as reauiredunder article *tz. 63?a. CCP. OCC/SIOM LAU); Trial'courts oralpronouncementdSentence. Controls overwrittenjudgment Set fxpo.de Pashm I76> SiuodSfS (TexCriniApo zoos) AwardofCourtCosts must bepodoftit oralpronouncementdSentence fa bt properly includedin Ik Writtenjudgment. See OJti'r v. Stale 1st Ma/as* rJt [11 at 88 CfatytL tonka m). ^^mcialc*^ fa kapplied Consistentwilt) Slatufes anddecisionalku)- CaflanS. Arklt <1z.637l CCP, rehires hiiftit Court does not order restitution, it \kJf>/fe ontit recordIk reason far notmakirg tit order. Because, tit slJulc reauirc5 if Ikjudge, has no discretion to do otherturn. &ee &parte Pec l5(mzdS73 \TcxCri*i\ppMB., See alto tiewalfvAicdc 417mddC78,C90 (TtxApp_fadmmi3), J. MCUlSfOtli In caastno. f6

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Calixto Garcia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-calixto-garcia-texapp-2015.