in Re Steve Vic Parker ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                   IN THE
    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-12-00297-CR
    IN RE STEVE VIC PARKER
    Original Proceeding
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Steve Vic Parker has filed a mandamus proceeding in this Court.             In this
    proceeding, Parker asserts that (1) the trial court has refused to rule on two motions for
    judgment nunc pro tunc, one of which has been on file for a year and another that has
    been on file for one month and (2) TDCJ has erred in combining a 20 year sentence that
    Parker was given in a prior case, under the name Jerry Wilson, with two concurrent 7
    year sentences handed down by Respondent in a newer proceeding, under the name
    Steve Vic Parker. He asks that we order Respondent to respond to Parker’s motions for
    judgment nunc pro tunc; and, although he complains about TDCJ’s error in combining
    his sentence, Parker wants us to order Respondent to correct Parker’s sentence.
    It is difficult to follow what Parker’s current complaint is. This is in large part
    because he does not comply with the procedural requirements of mandamus practice—
    including, but not limited to, he has not provided the required certification nor has he
    filed the required appendix and record containing the documents upon which the relief
    is requested.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), (k); 52.7. Thus, his petition lacks the focus
    necessary to assist the Court in deciding if he is entitled to any relief.
    Notwithstanding the procedural shortcomings of Steve Vic Parker’s petition for
    writ of mandamus, we use Rule 2 to reach the merits of his petition and expedite our
    response. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Based on the petition as filed, it appears Parker’s “live”
    motion for judgment nunc pro tunc has only been on file for one month. Further, we
    note that the judgment in the underlying proceeding, trial court cause number 2010-
    0447-C1, was appealed and only became final on August 13, 2012 when our mandate
    issued. We do not believe Respondent has had a reasonable time to rule on the live
    motion.        In re Chavez, 
    62 S.W.3d 225
    , 228-229 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig.
    proceeding). Further, we have no authority to correct Parker’s sentence by writ of
    mandamus by compelling the trial court to rule in a particular manner on a pending
    motion. State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 
    726 S.W.2d 125
    , 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).
    1 Other deficiencies include: no identification of the parties, no table of contents, no index of authorities,
    no statement of jurisdiction, no issues presented, and no clear and concise argument. See TEX. R. APP. P.
    52.3. Parker further has made no showing that he has presented the motions for judgment nunc pro tunc
    to Respondent. See In re Chavez, 
    62 S.W.3d 225
    , 228-229 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).
    Further, we still remind Parker that a copy of each document (the entire document or relevant excerpts)
    upon which he relies to show he is entitled to mandamus relief must be included in the record he is
    required to provide. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). The copies must be certified or sworn. 
    Id.
    In re Parker                                                                                           Page 2
    Parker’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
    TOM GRAY
    Chief Justice
    Before Chief Justice Gray,
    Justice Davis, and
    Justice Scoggins
    Petition denied
    Opinion delivered and filed August 30, 2012
    Do not publish
    [OT06]
    In re Parker                                                Page 3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-12-00297-CR

Filed Date: 8/30/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015