in Re Lagary Harrison ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-14-00043-CR
____________________
IN RE LAGARY HARRISON
_______________________________________________________ ______________
Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lagary Harrison seeks mandamus relief against the trial court for failing to
rule on a motion that was filed in a criminal case long after his conviction was
final. We deny mandamus relief.
We affirmed Harrison’s conviction for aggravated sexual assault in 2002.
See Harrison v. State, No. 09-00-372 CR, 2002 WL 1339918, at *1, 6 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont June 19, 2002, no pet.). The Court of Criminal Appeals denied
Harrison’s application for writ of habeas corpus without issuing a written order.
See Ex parte Harrison, WR-67,318-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 5, 2011), available
1
at http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/EventInfo.asp?EventID=2460870.
On December 3, 2013, Harrison filed a petition for writ of mandamus in his long-
final criminal case. Through his mandamus petition, Harrison sought to force the
prosecutor to respond to Harrison’s Open Records Act request for access to the
prosecutor’s file. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 552.028 (West 2012). The
prosecutor had refused Harrison’s request. See id. § 552.028(a)(1). (“A
governmental body is not required to accept or comply with a request for
information from: (1) an individual who is imprisoned or confined in a correctional
facility[.]”).
On January 29, 2014, Harrison filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this
Court. He contends that the trial court failed in its ministerial duty to rule on
Harrison’s mandamus petition. Because the trial court is empowered to decide
issues over which the court has jurisdiction, “consideration of a motion properly
filed and before the court is ministerial.” State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d
125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig. proceeding) (op. on reh’g). Id. After the
trial court loses plenary jurisdiction, the exercise of jurisdiction is limited to
specific functions authorized by statute or through the appellate process. See State
v. Holloway, 360 S.W.3d 480, 484-85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (orig. proceeding).
Mandamus relief is not available to compel the trial court to rule on a motion that
2
is filed after the judgment becomes final. See, e.g., Rabel v. Grace, 335 S.W.2d
227, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960) (orig. proceeding).
Harrison’s mandamus petition was not filed as an independent suit or as part
of a post-conviction procedure in which the trial court has the authority to act. He
has not shown that the matter is properly filed and before the trial court. We deny
the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Opinion Delivered February 19, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
3