in Re: Juan Suarez ( 2018 )

ACCEPTED
05-18-00191-CV
FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS
DALLAS, TEXAS
3/26/2018 3:53 PM
LISA MATZ
CLERK
No. 05-18-00191-CV
No. 05-18-00192-CV
No. 05-18-00193-CV FILED IN
5th COURT OF APPEALS
DALLAS, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 3/26/2018 3:53:09 PM
AT DALLAS LISA MATZ
Clerk
________________________
IN RE JUAN SUAREZ,
Relator
HON. STEPHANIE N. MITCHELL,
Respondent
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Real Party in Interest
________________________
Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court
of Dallas County, Texas
Cause Nos. F12-53672-U, F12-54454-U, F12-54455-U
________________________
STATE’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
________________________
Counsel of Record:
FAITH JOHNSON RICARDO VELA, JR.
Criminal District Attorney Assistant District Attorney
Dallas County, Texas State Bar No. 24072800
Frank Crowley Court Building
133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19
Dallas, Texas 75207-4399
(214) 653-3625 (Phone)
(214) 653-3643 (Fax)
ricardo.vela@dallascounty.org
Attorneys for the State of Texas
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Relator: JUAN SUAREZ, PRO SE
TDCJ# 01846207
McConnell Unit
3001 S. Emily Dr.
Beeville, Texas 78102
Respondent: HON. STEPHANIE N. MITCHELL , PRESIDING JUDGE
291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas
133 North Riverfront Boulevard
LB-34
Dallas, Texas 75207
Real Party in Interest: THE STATE OF TEXAS
Represented by: Hon. Faith Johnson, Criminal District Attorney
Ricardo Vela, Jr., Assistant Criminal District Attorney
Dallas County District Attorney’s Office
133 North Riverfront Boulevard
LB-19
Dallas, Texas 75207
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .............................................................. ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................. iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................................... 1
ISSUES PRESENTED ....................................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 2
Response to Issue One: Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal and
therefore is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. ............................................................ 2
Response to Issue Two: Because Relator has received the relief he seeks via
mandamus, this issue is moot. .......................................................................................... 3
PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 5
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COMPLIANCE.................................................................. 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................... 6
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 7
Appendix I .......................................................................................................................... 8
Appendix II....................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix III ..................................................................................................................... 19
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Baluch v. Miller,
774 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, orig. proceeding) ...................................... 5
Barnes v. State,
832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding)................ 4
Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia,
909 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) .............................................................. 5
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall,
829 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1992) .............................................................................................. 4
Harrell v. State,
286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) .............................................................................................. 3
In re Hill,
No. 05-15-01478-CV, 2016 WL 55557 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 5, 2016, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) ..................................................................................................... 1
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,
166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) .............................................................. 5
In re Prudential Ins. Co.,
148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) .............................................................. 3
In re Rowe,
No. 05-15-00159-CV, 2015 WL 1063111 (Tex. App.—Dallas, Mar. 11, 2015, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) ..................................................................................................... 5
In re State ex rel. Weeks,
391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) ......................................... 2
In re Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs.,
210 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) .............................................................. 3
Johnson v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Waco,
280 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ......................................................................... 3
iv
Kissam v. Williamson,
545 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding) ........................................ 4
State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez,
891 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding) .............................................................. 5
State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth District,
34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding) ........................................... 4
Womack v. Berry,
291 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. 1956) .............................................................................................. 5
Statutes
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.014 (West 2010).................................................................... 2
v
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
The State of Texas, Real Party in Interest, submits this response to Relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Relator judicially confessed and pled guilty to three sexual assault of child
felony offenses. Appendix I.1 On March 18, 2013, Relator was sentenced to 25
years’ incarceration in each cause to run concurrently; in cause F12-54454-U, the
trial court imposed a $2000 fine. Appendix I. The trial court incorporated into
each judgment orders to withdraw funds from Relator’s Inmate Trust Account.
Appendix I, II. Four years later, Relator filed with the trial court a Motion to Request
the Trial Court Rescind Three Orders to Withdrawal Funds from the Inmate’s Trust
Fund, and Order the Return of any Funds Withdrawn. Petition Exhibit D. Relator
submitted this instant petition for a writ of mandamus on February 21, 2018.
Subsequently, the trial court considered and denied Relator’s motion. Appendix III.
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether Relator has established that he has no adequate remedy at law,
entitling him to mandamus relief.
2. Whether this Court should issue a writ of mandamus to compel
Respondent to rule on Relator’s disposed motion.
1The State incorporates additional documents in its response to adequately support the record. See
In re Hill, No. 05-15-01478-CV, 2016 WL 55557, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 5, 2016, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.).
ARGUMENT
Response to Issue One: Relator has an adequate remedy by
appeal and therefore is not entitled to a writ of mandamus.
Relator seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his
motion requesting that the trial court rescind its orders to withdraw funds from his
Inmate Trust Fund because they violate his due process rights. Relator fails to show
that he is entitled to mandamus relief.
To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must
show that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at
law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig.
proceeding). The withdrawal orders issued by a trial court allow the Institutional
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to withdraw money from
Relator’s trust account for payment to the Dallas County district clerk for the
amounts specified by the court orders. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.014(e), (f)(5)
(West 2010). Orders expressly purported to be entered pursuant to section 501.014(e)
of the Government Code are civil in nature. Johnson v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Court of
Appeals at Waco, 280 S.W.3d 866, 872–75 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The proper method
for seeking appellate review of an order of withdrawal of funds from an inmate trust
account is by appeal of the order. Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Tex. 2009).
Mandamus relief is proper only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no
2
adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex.
2004) (orig. proceeding).
Relator fails to establish that he has no adequate remedy at law. Because
Relator challenges the trial court’s three orders to withdraw funds, direct appeal of
these orders is appropriate. See Harrell, 286 S.W.3d at 321 (stating “[A]ppellate review
should be by appeal, as in analogous civil post-judgment enforcement actions.”). Any
failure on Relator’s part to comply with the rules of civil procedure and properly file a
notice of appeal is not a sufficient excuse to justify issuance of mandamus. See In re
Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2006) (orig.
proceeding). Accordingly, Relator has failed to show that he is entitled to mandamus
relief and his petition should be denied.
Response to Issue Two: Because Relator has received the relief
he seeks via mandamus, this issue is moot.
Relator argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not ruling on his
motion and requests this Court to compel Respondent to rule on his motion.
Relator’s petition is moot.
An act is ministerial if the relator has a “clear right to the relief sought.” Id.;
State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App.
2001) (orig. proceeding). The law must clearly spell out the duty to be performed
by the lower court with such certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion
or judgment. See Hill, 34 S.W.3d at 928. When a motion is properly filed and pending
3
before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is a
ministerial act. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
1992, orig. proceeding) (citing Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1992)).
In such circumstances, a trial court must consider and rule upon the motion within
what, when all the surrounding circumstances are taken into account, constitutes a
reasonable time. See Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex. App.—Tyler
1976, orig. proceeding) (determining mandamus would issue when a lower court had
not acted “within a reasonable time”). A refusal to rule within a reasonable time
would frustrate that process and, moreover, would constitute a denial of due course
of law. Baluch v. Miller, 774 S.W.2d 299, 301–02 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, orig.
proceeding). Therefore, mandamus is appropriate to compel a trial court to make a
ruling within a reasonable time. Womack v. Berry, 291 S.W.2d 677, 682 (Tex. 1956).
However, a court should not issue mandamus if it would be useless or
unavailing. Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995) (orig.
proceeding). A case may be dismissed as moot at any stage of the proceedings. In re
Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). A case
becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the
legal proceedings. Id.; State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994) (orig.
proceeding) (stating that for controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real
controversy between the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief
sought).
4
A justiciable controversy no longer exists with respect to Relator’s motion.
Respondent’s denial of Relator’s motion granted the relief he seeks on mandamus. See
In re Rowe, No. 05-15-00159-CV, 2015 WL 1063111, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas, Mar.
11, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, Relator’s petition is moot and
should be denied.
PRAYER
The State of Texas, Real Party in Interest, submits that this Court should deny
Relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
Respectfully submitted,
FAITH JOHNSON /s/ Ricardo Vela, Jr.________
Criminal District Attorney RICARDO VELA, JR.
Dallas County, Texas Assistant District Attorney
State Bar Number 24072800
Frank
133 Crowley Building
N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19
133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19
Dallas, Texas 75207-4399
(214) 653-3625 (phone)
(214) 653-3643 (fax)
ricardo.vela@dallascounty.org
5
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COMPLIANCE
I, Ricardo Vela, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, hereby certify that the
foregoing response is 916 words in length according to Microsoft Word, which was
used to prepare the response.
/s/ Ricardo Vela, Jr.________
RICARDO VELA, JR.
Assistant District Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Ricardo Vela, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, hereby certify that a true copy
of the foregoing response has been served on Relator pro see via U.S. Mail to Juan
Suarez, TDCJ# 01846207, McConnell Unit, 3001 S. Emily Drive, Beeville, Texas
78102, on March 26, 2018.
/s/ Ricardo Vela, Jr.________
RICARDO VELA, JR.
Assistant District Attorney
6
APPENDIX
7
Appendix I
8
Appendix II
15
Appendix III
19