eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2005-12

in Re Michael Wayne Osborne ( 2005 )


Menu:

  • In The



    Court of Appeals



    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



    ____________________



    NO. 09-05-502 CV

    ____________________



    IN RE MICHAEL WAYNE OSBORNE



    Original Proceeding


    MEMORANDUM OPINION

    On November 28, 2005, Michael Wayne Osborne filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Currently under indictment for falsely holding oneself out as a lawyer and for theft, Osborne complains of the trial court's failure to rule on his motion requesting admonishments regarding self-representation, and on his motion for discovery and inspection. Although the issue presented by the relator contends the trial court failed to rule on his motion for discovery and inspection, in the body of the petition Osborne claims the trial court denied all of his motions.

    Osborne also complains that the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining Osborne's motion for order of referral on his motion to recuse the trial judge, without first providing a ten day notice. Had notice been provided, Osborne argues, he would have proven that the trial judge had a bias. The relator asks this Court to order the trial judge to recuse himself from the cases. From the attachments to the petition, it appears the order of referral was signed March 10, 2005, the administrative judge gave notice of hearing on the motion to recuse on April 19, 2005, the hearing was conducted April 27, 2005, and the order denying the motion was signed the same day.   

    To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must show that he has no other adequate remedy at law to address the alleged error and that the act the relator seeks to compel is ministerial. State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The relator has not shown that he is entitled to the relief requested in the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j). The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

    WRIT DENIED.

    PER CURIAM

    Opinion Delivered December 15, 2005

    Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.