in Re Anthony Ray Banks ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00164-CR
__________________
IN RE ANTHONY RAY BANKS
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 67286, 67288 and 64255
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Anthony Ray Banks asks this Court to
compel the judge of the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas to rule on
the motion Banks filed asking the trial court to compel the attorney who represented
him in three criminal cases to release the files he created in the cases to Banks. Even
if Banks has been unable to obtain his files, however, his petition fails to show that
the trial court cause numbers in which he filed his motion (causes 67286, 67288 and
1
64255) are still active criminal proceedings in any courts in Jefferson County,
including the 252nd District Court.1
“Mandamus relief may be granted if a relator shows that: (1) the act sought to
be compelled is purely ministerial, and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law.” In
re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). To
obtain relief on a petition for mandamus, the petitioner must show that he has a clear
legal right to the act that he is seeking to compel. Id. To establish a clear legal right
to a ruling on his motion, the petitioner must show the trial court had a legal duty
that the court failed to discharge by ruling on the motion that is the subject of the
petitioner’s motion, that the petitioner asked the trial court to rule on his motion, and
the trial court failed or refused to do so within a reasonable time. In re Pete, 589
S.W.3d 320, 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding).
Trial courts do not retain general jurisdiction over cases after the plenary
jurisdiction that courts have over a specific case expires. Skinner v. State, 305
S.W.3d 593, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). “Once general jurisdiction has expired,
1
We take judicial notice of the fact that in 1996, this Court affirmed the
judgment of the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas in Trial Cause
Number 67286. See Banks v. State, No. 09-95-165 CR, 1996 WL 492629, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont Aug. 28, 1996, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
A few months later we dismissed Banks’ appeal from the Criminal District Court of
Jefferson County, Texas in Trial Cause Number 64255. Banks v. State, No. 09-95-
164 CR, 1997 WL 34389, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 29, 1997, no pet.) (mem.
op., not designated for publication). Banks does not claim that Trial Cause Number
67288 is an active case filed in the 252nd District Court.
2
and absent direction from a higher court, a trial court can act only if, and to the
extent, it is authorized to do so by a specific statutory source.” Id. Here, the judge
presiding over the 252nd District Court had no duty or jurisdiction to rule on Banks’
free-floating motion given that he has failed to establish that it is related to cases that
are still pending in that court. See In re Cash, No. 06-04-00045-CV, 2004 WL
769473, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 13, 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
We conclude that Banks failed to establish he has a right to relief.
Accordingly, we deny his petition.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on June 22, 2021
Opinion Delivered June 23, 2021
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3