in Re Robert James Campbell

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 1, 2020
Docket01-20-00270-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Robert James Campbell (in Re Robert James Campbell) 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 Robert James Campbell, (Tex. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Opinion issued September 1, 2020.

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00270-CR ——————————— IN RE ROBERT JAMES CAMPBELL, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert James Campbell has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, alleging

that the trial court failed to rule on his motions for nunc pro tunc judgment.1

Campbell bears the burden of showing his entitlement to mandamus relief.

See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992,

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Robert James Campbell, cause number 05861900101F - 3, in the 232nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Josh Hill presiding. orig. proceeding). To be entitled to relief in a criminal case, a relator must show that

he has no adequate remedy at law and that the act he seeks to compel is ministerial.

See In re Mendoza, 467 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, orig.

proceeding). To establish his entitlement to mandamus relief for the trial court’s

alleged failure to rule, Campbell must establish a legal duty to perform a

nondiscretionary act, that he demanded performance, and that the trial court refused

the request. See id.

Campbell has not provided a record sufficient to show his entitlement to relief.

The attachment to his petition appears to be a copy of a request for a nunc pro tunc,

but it contains no file stamp establishing that it was filed in the trial court. Absent

proof of a properly-filed motion, a demand for performance, and a refusal by the

trial court, Campbell has not established his entitlement to relief for the failure to

rule. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k); 52.7(a).

We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Countiss. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

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

Related

Barnes v. State
832 S.W.2d 424 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
in Re Mike Mendoza, Jr.
467 S.W.3d 76 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Robert James Campbell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-james-campbell-texapp-2020.