in Re Wade Byron Morgan

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 17, 2019
Docket09-19-00096-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Wade Byron Morgan (in Re Wade Byron Morgan) 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 Wade Byron Morgan, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00096-CR __________________

IN RE WADE BYRON MORGAN

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 75th District Court of Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR22130-B __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original mandamus proceeding, Wade Byron Morgan asks this Court

to compel the trial court to enter a judgment nunc pro tunc. Morgan claims his

sentence is void because he was sentenced to serve thirty years in prison for a second

degree felony. Morgan has not shown that he was convicted under section

30.02(c)(2) and not section 30.02(d) of the Texas Penal Code. See generally Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(d) (West 2019) (“An offense under this section is a felony

of the first degree if: (1) the premises are a habitation; and (2) any party to the offense

1 entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or

committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.”).1

To obtain mandamus relief, Morgan must show that he has a clear and

indisputable right to the act sought to be compelled. Banales v. Court of Appeals for

Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 93 S.W.3d 33, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Relator has not

demonstrated that he is clearly entitled to mandamus relief from this Court. See State

ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App.

2001) (holding that to demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus, a relator must

establish that the trial court failed to perform a ministerial duty, and that relator has

no other adequate legal remedy). Accordingly, we deny relief on the petition for writ

of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 16, 2019 Opinion Delivered April 17, 2019 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1 We cite the current version of the statute because subsequent amendments do not affect our analysis. 2

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

Related

Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist.
34 S.W.3d 924 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Wade Byron Morgan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wade-byron-morgan-texapp-2019.