in Re Hollis Joseph Jackson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 17, 2022
• Docket: 09-22-00244-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00244-CR __________________

IN RE HOLLIS JOSEPH JACKSON

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 01-84253 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Hollis Joseph Jackson filed a mandamus petition through which he complains

that the trial court failed to rule on his request for a judgment nunc pro tunc awarding

credit on his sentence for “street time” spent on mandatory supervision. 1 To compel

a trial court to rule on a motion, the relator must establish that the trial court (1) had

a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed

1 Jackson filed a procedurally defective petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. Additionally, he failed to certify that he served a copy of the petition on the State as the real party in interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We use Rule 2, however, to look beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2. 1 or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d

381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). Unlike claims

for credit for pre-sentence jail confinement, errors in credit for time served on

mandatory supervision are not corrected by judgment nunc pro tunc. Compare Ex

parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“Pre-sentence time

credit claims typically must be raised by a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc filed

with the clerk of the convicting trial court.”), with Ex parte Johnson, 273 S.W.3d

340, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (granting habeas relief on claim for credit for time

served on mandatory supervision). Jackson has not shown that the trial court had a

legal duty to rule on the motion. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 16, 2022 Opinion Delivered August 17, 2022 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.