IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00220-CR IN RE CHARLES RAY BAKER

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Charles Ray Baker, a prison inmate, seeks a mandamus to compel the Honorable Wayne Bridewell, of the 249th District Court, to rule on Baker’s motion nunc pro tunc allegedly submitted to address a question about a time served entry in the underlying judgment and to address TDCJ-ID’s ‚refusal to acknowledge ‘time granted by judgments.’‛ There are procedural problems with this petition including, but not limited to, that the petition was not served on the respondent or the real party in interest and there is no record as required. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5; 52.2; 52.3(k); 52.7.

However, we use Rule 2 to look beyond those problems and deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2.

Without copies of the underlying judgments, Baker’s motions nunc pro tunc, and the efforts Baker has made to get the trial court to rule on the motions, there is simply not enough here to show the trial court had refused to rule on a motion nunc pro tunc.

Thus, Baker has not established he is entitled to relief. See In re Douthit, No. 10-12- 00121-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 3542, *2 (Tex. App.—Waco May 2, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Mullins, No. 10-09-00143-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 7285, *2, n.1 (Tex. App.—Waco Sept. 16, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding).

Further, we have no jurisdiction over TDCJ-ID’s ‚refusal to acknowledge ‘time granted by judgments.’‛ See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (West 2004).

Accordingly, Baker’s petition is denied as to the trial court and dismissed for want of jurisdiction as to TDCJ-ID.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Petition denied and dismissed Opinion delivered and filed July 12, 2012 Do not publish [OT06]

In re Baker Page 2