eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2003-04

in Re Norris A. House ( 2003 )


Menu:

  •   

    In The



    Court of Appeals



    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



    ____________________



    NO. 09-03-182 CV

    ____________________



    IN RE NORRIS A. HOUSE



    Original Proceeding


    MEMORANDUM OPINION (1)

    On April 21, 2003, Norris A. House filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The relator seeks an order to compel Albert J. Charanza, Jr., who is an Assistant District Attorney for Angelina County, and the Honorable David V. Wilson, Judge of the 217th District Court of Angelina County, Texas, to reconsider a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus that was dismissed by order of the Court of Criminal Appeals on February 12, 2003.

    Charanza is not one of the persons against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus other than to protect our jurisdiction, and the relator has not shown that the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2003). Therefore, House is not entitled to mandamus relief against Charanza or the Angelina County District Attorney.

    As for House's complaint against Judge Wilson, we may grant mandamus relief if relator demonstrates that the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial under the relevant facts and law, and that relator has no other adequate legal remedy. State ex. rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). An act is "ministerial" if it does not involve the exercise of any discretion or the relator's entitlement to the relief sought is clear and indisputable such that its merits are beyond dispute. Id. at 927-28. The act of considering a motion, such as an application for a writ of habeas corpus, is ministerial. In re Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134-35 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). The ruling on the writ of habeas corpus, on the other hand, is not subject to review by mandamus. See Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

    In this case, the relator has not shown that the trial court refused to consider a duly filed and presented application. Not only did House obtain a ruling on his application for writ of habeas corpus, that ruling was issued by our state's court of last resort for criminal cases. As we lack authority to command the Court of Criminal Appeals to reinstate the relator's application for writ of habeas corpus, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

    WRIT DENIED.

    PER CURIAM



    Opinion Delivered April 24, 2003

    Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.

    1. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.