in Re John Edgar Reider

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 20, 2003
• Docket: 09-03-00143-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-03-143 CV

IN RE JOHN EDGAR REIDER

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION ⁽¹⁾

On March 18, 2003, John Edgar Reider filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The relator seeks an order to compel the Honorable Olen Underwood, Judge of the 284^th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, and Janie Cockrell, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, to: 1) delete a cumulation order from a judgment signed by Judge Underwood in 1994; 2) set aside an order denying Reider's motion for judgment nunc pro tunc; and 3) alter the method of calculating Reider's release date.

Cockrell is not one of the persons against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus other than to protect our jurisdiction, and the relator has not shown that the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2003). Therefore, Reider is not entitled to mandamus relief against Cockrell or the Department.

As for his complaint against Judge Underwood, we may grant mandamus relief if relator demonstrates that the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial under the relevant facts and law, and that relator has no other adequate legal remedy. State ex. rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). A trial court's denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not appealable. Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex.1990). In this case, however, the relator has not shown that he could not have challenged the cumulation order through regular appeal in 1994. Furthermore, the relator has not shown that no other adequate remedy at law is available, through habeas corpus or through administrative proceedings. See Banales v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 93 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore denied.

WRIT DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered March 20, 2003

Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.

1. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.