in Re Ronjee Middleon ( 2015 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00062-CR
IN RE Ronjee MIDDLETON
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 4, 2015
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On February 9, 2015, relator Ronjee Middleton filed a petition for writ of mandamus
complaining of the trial court’s denial of Middleton’s motion to unseal an exhibit containing the
juror information cards for venire members seated in his criminal jury trial. See TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 35.29(a)-(b) (West Supp. 2014) (protecting juror information from disclosure
except upon showing of good cause). The court has considered Middleton’s petition and is of the
opinion that he is not entitled to the relief sought.
Prior to voir dire examination in the underlying proceeding, the State requested a jury
shuffle. Defense counsel objected to the jury shuffle on the ground that it violated relator’s rights
under Batson v. Kentucky. 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1985) (finding that the systematic exclusion of venire
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-CR-0666, styled The State of Texas v. Ronjee Middleton, pending in
the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell presiding.
04-15-00062-CR
members as potential jurors on the basis of race violates equal protection principles). The trial
court overruled Middleton’s objection and the trial proceeded. The jury ultimately convicted
Middleton of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and Middleton timely filed a notice of
appeal. The appeal, styled Middleton v. State, Appeal No. 04-14-00678-CR, remains pending
before this court. Middleton moved to unseal the juror information cards so they could be included
in the record on appeal, in which he intends to argue the trial court erred in overruling his Batson
challenge to the jury shuffle. The trial court denied Middleton’s motion and Middleton now seeks
mandamus relief.
The Supreme Court, in Batson created a framework allowing a criminal defendant to
enforce equal protection principles to prevent the State’s exercise of peremptory challenges in a
racially discriminatory manner. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97; Casarez v. State, 913 S.W.2d 468, 471
(Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (en banc). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has yet to extend the
application of Batson to permit a criminal defendant to challenge the State’s request for a jury
shuffle. See Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 575 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (noting the court has not
endorsed the argument that Batson naturally extends to jury shuffles).
Because we are unable to find any case which would require the trial court to conclude that
relator established good cause for the disclosure of the juror information cards in this instance, we
cannot conclude that relator has demonstrated a “clear right to relief.” See Buntion v. Harmon, 827
S.W.2d 945, 947-48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (en banc) (mandamus relief in a criminal case requires
both no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm and a clear right to the relief sought).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-