in Re Shane Matthew Buchel ( 2018 )

NUMBERS 13-18-00509-CR, 13-18-00510-CR, 13-18-00511-CR,
13-18-00512-CR, 13-18-00513-CR, 13-18-00514-CR, 13-18-00515-CR,
13-18-00516-CR, 13-18-00517-CR, 13-18-00518-CR, 13-18-00519-CR,
13-18-00520-CR, 13-18-00521-CR, 13-18-00522-CR, & 13-18-00523-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE SHANE MATTHEW BUCHEL
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
ORDER
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa
Order Per Curiam
Shane Matthew Buchel filed a pleading in the foregoing causes through which he
contends that the trial court erred by failing to “consolidate restitution” in trial court cause
numbers 15-11-12,314A; 15-11-12,315; 15-11-12,316; 15-11-12,317; 15-11-12,318; 15-
11-12,319; 15-11-12,320; 15-11-12,321A; 15-11-12,322A; 15-11,12,323A; 15-11-
12,324A; 15-11-12,325A; 15-11-12,326A; 15-11-12,327; and 15-11-12,328A in the 24th
District Court of DeWitt County, Texas, and docketed respectively in the foregoing
appellate cause numbers. Buchel argues, inter alia, that the trial court allowed the
collection of restitution and fees for each of the foregoing cases according to each
individual judgment and the corresponding order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust
account cases, even though the restitution and fees were ordered pursuant to concurrent
sentences. See, e.g., State v. Crook, 248 S.W.3d 172, 174–77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(plurality op.). We construe Buchel’s pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus.
The Court requests that the State of Texas, acting by and through the District
Attorney for DeWitt County, Texas, or any others whose interest would be directly affected
by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the
expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. t
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
18th day of September, 2018.
2