Relator, Arthur David Lowe, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent district judge to rule on his pro se “Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc” filed in his two underlying criminal proceedings. ^[1] *2 Relator’s petition states that the respondent already granted his motion in 2014, but he seeks to compel respondent to orally pronounce re-sentence in his presence.

We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. ^[2] See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a),

(d).

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Brown.

Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

[1] The underlying cases are The State of Texas v. Arthur David Lowe , Cause Nos. 659154 & 659156, in the 339th District Court, Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Maria T. Jackson presiding.

[2] This Court previously dismissed for want of jurisdiction relator’s pro se mandamus petition challenging the same nunc pro tunc judgments. See In re Arthur David Lowe , Nos. 01-16-00208-CR & 01-16-00209-CR, 2016 WL 3220437, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 9, 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Relator previously raised the same claim in this petition in a pro se motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus, which the Court of Criminal Appeals denied without a written order. See In re Arthur David Lowe , WR-25,679-31 (Tex. Crim. App. May 3, 2017). 2