In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-06-037 CV
____________________
IN RE PATRICK CHRISTOPHER ROLLE
Patrick Christopher Rolle seeks mandamus relief to compel the trial court to transmit to this Court "a copy of the application for nunc pro tunc, any answer filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made" in Cause No. 83465. To obtain mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate that (1) he has no other adequate legal remedy, and (2) under the relevant facts and law, the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial. State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). An act is ministerial if it does not involve the exercise of any discretion and the relator has a clear and indisputable right to relief. Id.
Rolle filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in which he applied for 201 days of "backtime," which we assume refers to presentence jail time credit. The trial court has the authority to correct the omission of presentence jail credit through judgment nunc pro tunc. Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Mandamus is available to compel the trial court to respond to a nunc pro tunc motion for presentence jail credit. Id. at 249. Nowhere in Rolle's petition does he claim that he presented the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc to the trial court and that the trial court refused to consider the motion. (1) Instead, Rolle complains that he repeatedly asked the district clerk to forward a copy of his application, any answer, and a certificate to the Court of Appeals. The relator does not identify to what end he wants documents forwarded to this Court, but he does not contend that the trial court ruled on the merits of the application for credit on the sentence. If there is no trial court ruling for this Court to review, whether through mandamus or appeal, we discern no purpose in compelling the trial court to have a record prepared. That is the only relief sought in the petition.
The relator has not shown that he is entitled to the relief sought. The petition for writ of mandamus, filed February 6, 2006, is DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Opinion Delivered February 16, 2006
Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
1. Were Rolle complaining that the trial court is ignoring the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, we would expect the relator to describe the efforts he has taken to obtain a ruling and establish that the motion awaited disposition for an unreasonable length of time under the circumstances of this particular case. See In re Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134-35 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).