in Re Shane Matthew Buchel

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-18-00509-CR, 13-18-00510-CR, 13-18-00511-CR, 13-18-00512-CR, 13-18-00513-CR, 13-18-00514-CR, 13-18-00515-CR, 13-18-00516-CR, 13-18-00517-CR, 13-18-00518-CR, 13-18-00519-CR, 13-18-00520-CR, 13-18-00521-CR, 13-18-00522-CR, & 13-18-00523-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE SHANE MATTHEW BUCHEL

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Order Per Curiam

Shane Matthew Buchel filed a pleading in the foregoing causes through which he contends that the trial court erred by failing to “consolidate restitution” in trial court cause numbers 15-11-12,314A; 15-11-12,315; 15-11-12,316; 15-11-12,317; 15-11-12,318; 15- 11-12,319; 15-11-12,320; 15-11-12,321A; 15-11-12,322A; 15-11,12,323A; 15-11- 12,324A; 15-11-12,325A; 15-11-12,326A; 15-11-12,327; and 15-11-12,328A in the 24th District Court of DeWitt County, Texas, and docketed respectively in the foregoing

2

appellate cause numbers. Buchel argues, inter alia, that the trial court allowed the collection of restitution and fees for each of the foregoing cases according to each individual judgment and the corresponding order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account cases, even though the restitution and fees were ordered pursuant to concurrent sentences. See, e.g., State v. Crook, 248 S.W.3d 172, 174–77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (plurality op.). We construe Buchel’s pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus.

The Court requests that the State of Texas, acting by and through the District Attorney for DeWitt County, Texas, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. t IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 18th day of September, 2018.