Relator, Arlen Ray Tenberg, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on June 1, 2009, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in denying relator's motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment. Mandamus relief may be granted if the relator shows that: (1) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. See Deleon v. Dist. Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). The relator must have a "clear right" to the relief sought and the merits of the relief sought must be "beyond dispute." See id. "The requirement of a clear legal right necessitates that the law plainly describes the duty to be performed such that there is no room for the exercise of discretion." See id.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 3rd day of June, 2009.

1. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).