in Re: Marlin D. Alexander

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re: Marlin D. Alexander

DecidedJuly 30, 2010

Docket12-10-00233-CR

StatusPublished

This text of in Re: Marlin D. Alexander (in Re: Marlin D. Alexander) 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: Marlin D. Alexander, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 12-10-00233-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS ' IN RE: MARLIN D. ALEXANDER , ' ORIGINAL PROCEEDING RELATOR '

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator Marlin D. Alexander complains of the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc by which he sought to correct an alleged error in “flat-time calendar- time” credit. The court of criminal appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 901 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2009). This includes matters relating to flat time credit. See, e.g., Ex parte Lee, 223 S.W.3d 360, 360-61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In this case, Relator contends that he has been improperly denied credit for the time he was in the custody of the Bradshaw State Jail Facility, pending a detainer, from March 28, 2005 until he was released out on parole on July 12, 2006 (one year, eleven months, and six days). He filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in the trial court, which was denied. He now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to grant him the proper credit.1 However, we have no jurisdiction in this matter. The proper avenue for resolving the issue is by application for writ of habeas corpus as authorized by article 11.07. See Keene, 901 S.W.2d at 483. Accordingly,

1 A motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is filed when a defendant alleges an error in presentence jail time credit. See Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Relator’s complaint does not relate to presentence jail time. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed. All pending motions are overruled as moot. Opinion delivered July 30, 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

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

NO. 12-10-00233-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS ' IN RE: MARLIN D. ALEXANDER , ' ORIGINAL PROCEEDING RELATOR '

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator Marlin D. Alexander complains of the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc by which he sought to correct an alleged error in “flat-time calendar- time” credit. The court of criminal appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 901 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2009). This includes matters relating to flat time credit. See, e.g., Ex parte Lee, 223 S.W.3d 360, 360-61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In this case, Relator contends that he has been improperly denied credit for the time he was in the custody of the Bradshaw State Jail Facility, pending a detainer, from March 28, 2005 until he was released out on parole on July 12, 2006 (one year, eleven months, and six days). He filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in the trial court, which was denied. He now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to grant him the proper credit.1 However, we have no jurisdiction in this matter. The proper avenue for resolving the issue is by application for writ of habeas corpus as authorized by article 11.07. See Keene, 901 S.W.2d at 483. Accordingly,

1 A motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is filed when a defendant alleges an error in presentence jail time credit. See Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Relator’s complaint does not relate to presentence jail time. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed. All pending motions are overruled as moot. Opinion delivered July 30, 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in Re: Marlin D. Alexander, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marlin-d-alexander-texapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack