in Re Daniel Hoskins ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Petitions for Writs of Mandamus Denied in Part and Dismissed in Part and
    Memorandum Opinion filed May 5, 2022.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-22-00179-CR
    NO. 14-22-00180-CR
    NO. 14-22-00181-CR
    NO. 14-22-00182-CR
    NO. 14-22-00183-CR
    IN RE DANIEL HOSKINS, Relator
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    178th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause Nos. 1618216, 1628507, 1628513, 1628514 & 1705847
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    On March 14, 2022, relator Daniel Hoskins filed petitions for writs of
    mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App.
    P. 52. In the petitions, relator asks this court to compel respondents the Honorable
    Kelli Johnson, presiding judge of the 178th District Court of Harris County, and
    Jessica Caird, Harris County Assistant District Attorney, to set aside relator’s
    indictments for failure to provide a speedy trial.
    ANALYSIS
    Trial Court Judge
    Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief with respect to
    Judge Johnson. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the
    relator has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief relator seeks; and (2)
    what the relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary
    act. Powell v. Hocker, 
    516 S.W.3d 488
    , 494‒95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig.
    proceeding).
    A defendant may raise any complaint that the trial court violated his right to
    a speedy trial in a direct appeal. In re Prado, 
    522 S.W.3d 1
    , 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas
    2017, orig. proceeding); In re Wood, No. 01-03-00839-CV, 
    2003 WL 22100710
    , at
    *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 11, 2003, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
    Therefore, relator has not established that he does not have adequate remedy at law.
    See Prado, 522 S.W.3d at 2; Wood, 
    2003 WL 22100710
    , at *1. The petitions are
    denied as to Judge Johnson.
    Assistant District Attorney
    This court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against an
    assistant district attorney. This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section
    22.221 of the Government Code. A court of appeals may issue writs of mandamus
    against: (1) a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county
    2
    court in the court of appeals district; (2) a judge of a district court who is acting as a
    magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
    in the court of appeals district; or (3) an associate judge of a district or county court
    appointed by a judge under Chapter 201 of the Family Code in the court of appeals
    district for the judge who appointed the associate judge. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.
    § 22.221(b). The courts of appeals also may issue all writs necessary to enforce the
    court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Id. § 22.221(a).
    An assistant district attorney is not among the parties specified in section
    22.221(b). See id. § 22.221(b). Moreover, relator has not shown that the issuance
    of writs compelling the requested relief is necessary to enforce our appellate
    jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(a). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to issue writs of
    mandamus against an assistant district attorney.
    CONCLUSION
    Relator’s petitions are denied in part as to respondent Judge Johnson and
    dismissed for want of jurisdiction in part as to respondent Harris County Assistant
    District Attorney Caird.1
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Spain.
    Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
    1
    On March 25, 2022, we advised relator that we lacked jurisdiction over the part of his petition for
    writ of mandamus seeking a writ against Harris County Assistant District Attorney Caird and gave relator
    21 days to respond and demonstrate that we have jurisdiction over Caird. Relator did not respond.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-22-00182-CR

Filed Date: 5/5/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/9/2022