in Re Paul Ludie Moore ( 2012 )

Opinion issued June 21, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00408-CV
———————————
IN RE P.L.M., Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, P.L.M., petitioned for writ of mandamus asking that we order the
respondentto rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus “submitted as a
challenge against his juvenile delinquent proceeding and transfer order.”1
A writ of mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the
violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy at law.
1
Respondent is the Honorable John Phillips, 314th District Court, Harris County,
Texas.
Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994) (orig.
proceeding), superseded by statute on other grounds, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(7) (Vernon Supp. 2011), as recognized in In re AIU Ins.
Co., 148 S.W.3d 109, 119 (Tex. 2004). If the respondent trial court has a legal
duty to perform a nondiscretionary act, the relator must make a demand for
performance that the respondent refuses. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The relator
must also provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to
mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding).
Relator has not provided us with a record that shows that he has properly
filed his application for writ of habeas corpus for consideration by respondent, nor
has he included a certified or sworn copy of any orders complained of or any other
documents showing the matters complained of.2See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A).
2
The documents contained in the record are not sworn or certified copies.
Furthermore, the application for writ of habeas corpus does not show any
indication that it has been filed with the trial court.
This Court has previously addressed complaints by relator regarding the alleged
refusal of the district clerk to file his application for writ of habeas corpus, an issue
he does not raise in this petition for writ of mandamus. SeeIn re P.L.M., 01-11-
00086-CV, 2011 WL 1234692, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 31.
2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (percuriam). We have also previously
dismissed his original application for writ of habeas corpus filed in this Court
based on our lack of original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus when the
petitioner seeks release from incarceration stemming from his adjudication as a
2
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Any pending motions are
dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.
juvenile delinquent and subsequent transfer to adult prison. SeeIn re P.L.M., No.
01-11-00157-CV, 2011 WL 1234740, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar.
31, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (percuriam).
The trial court is the proper place for relator to file his application for writ of
habeas corpus. See Ex parte Valle, 104 S.W.3d 888, 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
While relator indicates that he filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the trial
court to compel the districtclerk to file his habeas application, he does not provide
those documents here and does not ask that we address the trial court’s apparent
refusal to act on that petition. If the district clerk is erroneously refusing to file
relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus, the proper court in which to file the
petition for writ of mandamus to compel the clerk to accept the filing is the trial
court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 24.011 (Vernon 2004) (providing that trial
court may grant writ of mandamus to enforce its jurisdiction).
3