in Re Keith Wilson ( 2019 )

Opinion issued June 27, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00381-CV
———————————
IN RE KEITH WILSON, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Keith Wilson, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to
vacate the respondent trial judge’s May 17, 2019 order denying relator’s “Plea to the
Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss” in the underlying civil assault proceeding.1 This
Court’s May 21, 2019 Order denied relator’s emergency motion, filed on May 20,
1
The underlying case is Barbara and Larry White v. Keith Wilson, Cause No. 10-
DCV-180326, pending in the 458th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, the
Honorable Robert L. Rolnick presiding.
2019, to stay all proceedings, including the May 21, 2019 jury trial date, pending
disposition of this petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(a).
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when the relator can
show both that: (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion or violated a duty
imposed by law; and (2) there is no adequate remedy by way of appeal. In re Ford
Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
This Court’s June 4, 2019 Order directed relator to file a supplemental
mandamus record with, among other documents, the jury verdict filed on May 22,
2019. On June 6, 2019, relator filed a motion to supplement the mandamus record
attaching certified copies of the requested documents, including the jury verdict filed
on May 22, 2019.
It is established law in Texas that the rendition of judgment on a jury verdict
is a ministerial duty. See Traywick v. Goodrich, 364 S.W.2d 190, 191 (Tex. 1963);
see also Webster v. Carey, No. 07-96-0181-CV, 1996 WL 526923, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo Sept. 17, 1996, no writ). Rule of Civil Procedure 300 states that
the trial court shall render judgment on a jury verdict “unless set aside, a new trial is
granted, or judgment is rendered notwithstanding verdict or jury finding under these
rules.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 300; see also In re Jamilah, No. 01-05-00521-CV, 2005 WL
1704506, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 21, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.).
2
Thus, because a jury verdict has been filed, absent a motion for new trial being filed
and granted, relator has an adequate appellate remedy to challenge the respondent’s
order that was the subject of this mandamus petition by directly appealing it together
with the final judgment after it is signed. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839–40
(mandamus relief is not available when adequate appellate remedy exists); see also
In re Esparza, No. 14-16-00748-CV, 2016 WL 5947445, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] Oct. 13, 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (citations
omitted) (“Except in unusual circumstances, not applicable here, mandamus relief is
not available after a final judgment has been issued because relator then has an
adequate remedy by direct appeal.”).
Accordingly, we grant relator’s motion to supplement the record, but deny the
mandamus petition because he has an adequate remedy by appeal.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.
3