in Re Donny Joe Curry ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-15-00080-CR
IN RE DONNY JOE CURRY
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Donny Joe Curry, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus in
which he asks this Court to direct the Honorable J. Andrew Bench and other officials/employees
of Hunt County and the City of Commerce to unseal certain “[f]inancial [i]nstruments,” to use the
proceeds to discharge his outstanding liabilities, and to take various other actions.
In his petition, Curry does not state that he has filed any motion or other pleading in the
trial court asking for such relief. He also does not allege that he has requested a hearing on any
motion or pleading he may have filed.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show (1) that he has no adequate remedy
at law and (2) that the action he seeks to compel is ministerial, not one 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). The relator is obligated to provide
this Court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827
S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197,
198–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Before
mandamus may issue, the relator must show that the trial court had a legal duty to perform a
ministerial act, was asked to do so, and failed or refused to act. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708,
710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding); see also In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (“Showing that a motion was filed with the court
clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention or presented
to the trial court with a request for a ruling.”). Curry has provided this Court with neither a copy
2
of a motion or other pleading filed in the trial court nor any evidence that such motion or pleading
was brought to the trial court’s attention and that rulings were requested. Therefore, even assuming
that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider his motion, Curry has failed to demonstrate that he
is entitled to mandamus relief.
We deny Curry’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice
Date Submitted: May 21, 2015
Date Decided: May 22, 2015
Do Not Publish
3