in Re Todd W. Altschul ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed
    October 13, 2020.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-20-00674-CR
    NO. 14-20-00675-CR
    IN RE TODD W. ALTSCHUL, Relator
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    23rd District Court
    Brazoria County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause Nos. 26672 and 26673
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    On September 14, 2020, relator Todd W. Altschul filed a petition for writ of
    mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App.
    P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to correct and modify nunc pro tunc
    judgments signed on August 28, 2019, by the Honorable Terri Holder, presiding
    judge of the 23rd District Court of Brazoria County.
    Relator also filed a motion to suspend any rule requiring a mandamus
    proceeding to be filed within six months or a year.
    To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no
    adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks is a
    ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel.
    Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 
    236 S.W.3d 207
    , 210
    (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (orig. proceeding).
    “A nunc pro tunc judgment is an appealable order under Article 44.02 [of
    the Code of Criminal Procedure] if the appeal is timely filed.” Blanton v. State, 
    369 S.W.3d 894
    , 904 (Tex. 2012). Mandamus relief is not available to challenge an
    appealable order. See Alvarez v. Eighth Court of Appeals of Tex., 
    977 S.W.2d 590
    ,
    592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The failure to timely pursue an adequate legal remedy
    forecloses mandamus relief. See In re Robertson, No. 14–16–01013–CV, 
    2017 WL 506807
    , at *2 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 7, 2017, orig. proceeding) (per
    curiam) (mem. op.).
    Because relator had an adequate remedy for challenging the nunc pro tunc
    judgments by appeal, he cannot show he is entitled to mandamus relief.
    Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. The denial of
    mandamus relief renders relator’s motion to suspend moot.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot.
    Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-20-00675-CR

Filed Date: 10/13/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2020