Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 09-22-2020
Case Style:
In re Robert James Campbell
Case Number: 01-20-00270-CR
Judge: PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Countiss.
Court: Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Daniel C. McCrory
The Honorable Kim K Ogg
Defendant's Attorney:
Free National Lawyer Directory
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description: Houston, Texas - Criminal Defense, Lawyer, Capital Murder, Writ of mandamus
 |
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.
2
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).
Outcome: We deny the petition.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: