eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2014-05

in Re: James McCoy ( 2014 )


Menu:
 
  • Deny and Opinion Filed May 30, 2014
S    In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00619-CV
IN RE JAMES MCCOY, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 292nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F02-02115-V
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers
Opinion by Justice Bridges
Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial
court to rule on his motion to compel the Dallas County District Attorney’s office to respond to
questions that he wished answered in conjunction with his petition for writ of habeas corpus in
federal court. This Court has not been given general supervisory control over district and county
courts. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Kirby,
    150 S.W.2d 123
    , 126 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1941, no
writ); see also Guillory v. Davis,
    527 S.W.2d 465
    , 466 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1975, no
writ). In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show two things: (1)
that he has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act.
In re Bonilla,
    424 S.W.3d 528
    , 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Consideration of a motion properly
filed and before the court is a ministerial act. State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist.,
    34 S.W.3d 924
    , 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (citing State ex rel. Curry v. Gray,
    726 S.W.2d 125
    ,
128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (opinion on reh'g)). Here, however, even if the motion is on file in
the convicting court, it is not “properly filed” in the trial court. The motion relator has filed in
the trial court is a motion to compel discovery against the District Attorney in relator’s federal
case. The case in which relator has filed his motion is the state criminal case in which he was
convicted. The state court that convicted relator does not have the authority to compel discovery
in his federal case and, thus, does not have a ministerial duty to rule on relator’s motion seeking
such discovery. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.
140619F.P05                                           /David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
–2–