In Re RaKeem J. Roache v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 15, 2025
• Docket: 09-25-00003-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00003-CR __________________

IN RE RAKEEM J. ROACHE

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F-20-34664-0 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator RaKeem J. Roache asks this

Court to compel the Jefferson County District Clerk, the trial court judge, and an

assistant prosecutor to respond to a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas

corpus that Roache says he mailed in November 2024 and to a motion for judgment

nunc pro tunc that Roache states he mailed in October 2024 seeking “5 year back

time credit.” We deny the petition.

We maintain general mandamus jurisdiction over certain judges in our district.

See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b). Otherwise, we may issue a writ of mandamus

1 only to enforce our jurisdiction. Id. § 22.221(a); see In re Revels, 420 S.W.3d 42, 42

(Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, orig. proceeding) (we may issue a writ of mandamus to

a district clerk only if he interferes with our jurisdiction). Roache does not claim that

the requested relief is necessary to enforce this Court’s jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t

Code Ann. § 22.221(a). Accordingly, mandamus relief is not available against the

District Clerk and the assistant district attorney. See id.

The Court of Criminal Appeals maintains exclusive mandamus jurisdiction

regarding proceedings under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

See Padieu v. Ct. of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2013) (distinguishing the intermediate appellate court’s authority to order

mandamus relief in a case where an article 11.07 application is anticipated but not

filed from cases involving active habeas corpus proceedings concerning final felony

convictions). Roache maintains that he has a pending article 11.07 application for a

writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we may not issue a writ of mandamus to compel

the trial court to proceed with processing Roache’s application for a writ of habeas

corpus.

Generally, a trial court’s failure at sentencing to award pre-sentence jail-time

credit to a defendant in accordance with article 42.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure may be corrected by a nunc pro tunc order. See Ex parte Ybarra, 149

S.W.3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03,

2 sec. 2(a). If a trial court fails to respond to a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc,

“relief may be sought by filing an application for writ of mandamus in a court of

appeals.” Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). But to

be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must provide a record that is sufficient to

establish (1) “that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm,”

and (2) “that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a

discretionary or judicial decision.” State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of

Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

Roache failed to provide any competent evidence to support his claim that the

trial court failed to award mandatory credit on Roache’s sentence and that the trial

court abused its discretion by ignoring Roache’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Roache also failed to certify he has

reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement is supported by

competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j).

Additionally, he failed to properly designate and serve a copy of his mandamus

petition on the Respondent and the Real Party in Interest. See id. 9.5, 52.2.

Finally, Roache has not shown that the trial court failed to rule within a

reasonable time. To establish that he properly filed a motion for judgment nunc pro

tunc, “the relator must provide either a file-stamped copy of the motion or other

proof that the motion in fact was filed and is pending before the trial court.” In re

3 Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 74 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig.

proceeding). Because the District Clerk’s knowledge that a motion has been filed is

not imputed to the trial court, the relator must also demonstrate that the motion for

judgment nunc pro tunc was brought to the attention of the trial court. In re Ramos,

598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). In

Ramos, the mandamus record included a clerk’s notation that the trial court had

directed that no action be taken on the motion. Id. at 474. Absent competent evidence

that the trial court was aware of but refused to rule on Roache’s motion for judgment

nunc pro tunc, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 14, 2025 Opinion Delivered January 15, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.