IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11-00316-CR
IN RE ERIC G. ANDIKA
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Eric G. Andika filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to award
him “Jail Time Credit” for time he spent in jail in the State of Georgia before being
extradited back to the State of Texas. The petition states that Andika was arrested in
Decatur, Georgia on May 2, 2003. The following day, he was arraigned “on a charge of
being an escapee/fugitive from justice from Navarro County, Texas and a detainer was
subsequently placed on [him] without bail.” Andika further states in the petition that
on May 4, 2004, he was “transferred back to the custody of the Sheriff of Navarro
County, Texas to stand trial on the charge of escape.”
Andika alleges that he filed a judgment nunc pro tunc seeking jail time credit for
the time served in Georgia and that the trial court denied the motion. The trial court is
required to grant the Applicant pre-sentence jail time credit when sentence is
pronounced. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.03 § 2(a) (West Pamph. 2010); Ex parte
Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). In the event the court fails to award
such credit at the time the sentence is imposed, the trial court has the authority to
correct the judgment to reflect the appropriate time credit by nunc pro tunc order and
should do so. TEX. R. APP. P. Rule 23.2.; Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d at 148.
Neither the judgment nunc pro tunc nor the order denying the motion are
included in Andika’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52 (k). It is not
clear whether Andika was convicted and sentenced on a charge of escape for which he
is seeking pre-sentence jail time credit or whether he was serving time for another
conviction, escaped from custody, and is seeking credit for that sentence. Therefore, we
cannot find that the trial court failed to award pre-sentence jail time credit at the time
sentence was imposed.
Andika’s petition contains procedural defects. The petition does not identify the
parties or contain proper proof of service. To expedite this matter, we implement TEX.
R. APP. P. 2 and suspend compliance with the pertinent procedural rules for this
petition for mandamus.
Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
In re Andika Page 2
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 2011
[OT06]
In re Andika Page 3