Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-24-2021
Case Style:
In Re John Robert Manning
Case Number: 09-21-00017-CR
Judge: Beaumont, Texas
Court: Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Plaintiff's Attorney: Brent Chapell
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Beaumont, Texas - Criminal defense attorney represented John Robert Manning with a petition for a writ of mandamus.
In a petition for a writ of mandamus John Robert Manning asks this Court to
compel the trial court to rule on a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Manning refers to the case by the appeal numbers this Court assigned to his appeal
from trial court cause number 13-09-09713-CR (count 1 and count 2). See generally
Manning v. State, Nos. 09-13-00533-CR and 09-13-00534-CR, 2015 WL 8473347,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 9, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for
publication). Our mandate issued on June 16, 2016.
2
“When a conviction has been affirmed on appeal and the mandate has issued,
general jurisdiction is not restored in the trial court.” State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d
592, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The trial court may correct a judgment nunc pro
tunc if the corrective action is ministerial. See Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147,
148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). But a trial court “does not have a duty to rule on freefloating motions unrelated to currently pending actions. In fact, it has no jurisdiction
to rule on a motion when it has no plenary jurisdiction coming from an associated
case.” In re Cash, No. 06-04-00045-CV, 2004 WL 769473, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana Apr. 13, 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that he
has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe,
98 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Relator has not shown that he is entitled
to mandamus relief
Outcome: Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: