in Re Milton Edward Griggs ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-15-00070-CR
IN RE: MILTON EDWARD GRIGGS
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Milton Edward Griggs, proceeding pro se, has filed a document seeking an emergency
furlough from confinement in the Hunt County Jail, where he is currently serving a 300-day
sentence for failure to identify while being a fugitive from justice. We interpret this document as
a petition for a writ of mandamus.
In his petition, Griggs claims he filed a request for emergency furlough together with a
request for hearing in the trial court on May 4 and May 5, 2015, respectively. Griggs explains that
the emergency furlough request was precipitated by his wife’s illness with cancer and pneumonia
and her recent hospitalization on May 1, 2015, at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
Griggs states that the trial court has failed to act on his request for emergency furlough, and he
asks this Court to order the trial court to immediately address his request.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and will issue only when the record establishes (1) a
clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law and (2) the absence of a clear
and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. 1994) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam); In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008,
orig. proceeding). To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that he has no
adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm and that he seeks to compel a ministerial act
not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court
of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). An act
is ministerial if it constitutes a duty clearly fixed and required by law. State ex rel. Curry v. Gray,
726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).
2
“In proper cases, mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act.” Blakeney, 254
S.W.3d at 661; see also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (per curiam)
(trial court abuses discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion); Chiles
v. Schuble, 788 S.W.2d 205, 207 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding)
(finding mandamus to be appropriate vehicle for requiring trial court to hold hearing and exercise
discretion).
In spite of his petition asking this Court to order the trial court to rule on his request for
emergency furlough, Griggs has failed to provide this Court with any record in support of his
petition. The procedural rules require Griggs to file a mandamus record containing a certified or
sworn copy of every document that is material to his claim for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.7(a)(1). Griggs’ petition is not accompanied by a certified or sworn copy of the motion filed in
the trial court. Likewise, Griggs’ petition fails to show that his motion was called to the attention
of the trial court. The trial court is not required to consider a motion unless it is called to the
court’s attention. Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662. Griggs’ petition does not include an appendix or
any other attempt to provide a record for our review. Without some record of this type, we are
unable to grant the extraordinary relief Griggs has requested.
3
For the reasons stated, we deny Griggs’ petition for writ of mandamus.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: May 21, 2015
Date Decided: May 22, 2015
Do Not Publish
4