in Re Anthony Chatmon ( 2020 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-20-00003-CR
IN RE ANTHONY CHATMON
Original Proceeding
D I S S E N T I N G OPINION
I get it. It is believed that persons in jail have nothing but time and file documents
asking for relief to which they are clearly not entitled. Over a long period of time, a judge
can become skeptical of all such requests for relief. This skepticism can cause some to
find the quick “out” upon which to dispose of a claim, whether it is purely procedural or
something more substantial such as the inmate has failed to attach a necessary or helpful
document or make a properly worded request for relief. And to be clear, I am not saying
that is what the Court is doing in this instance. After all, the Court could have
summarily denied the petition; but instead, the Court has explained to the inmate what
is lacking in his petition for writ of mandamus and mandamus record. But after doing
this for a long period of time, some judges also develop a warning system that is activated
when something does not “smell” right. Because in this proceeding my olfactory
detectors have been activated, I would request a response.
The allegations in the petition for writ of mandamus seem to indicate that
something is amiss. The petitioner alleges that in 2014 he was sentenced to five years in
prison. His fifth-year anniversary has come and gone, and he is still in prison. He asserts
TDCJ has calculated that he has completed 133% of his required time. He has filed a
motion in the trial court in an effort to determine why he has not been released. The
motion has been on file for more than 60 days without a ruling. Maybe the motion is not
artful, maybe it is not technically compliant, or maybe it needs to be an 11.07 petition for
writ of habeas corpus on the 11.07 writ form, but somebody needs to look at this
situation. Based on what we have in front of us, I would request a response.
I mean, after all, how long is long enough for a trial court to rule if the motion
indicates that the inmate might be entitled to immediate release because his full time has
been served. Does the inmate have to wait and serve another 30 extra days to file a new
mandamus petition? Another 60 days? How long is long enough if he was entitled to
his freedom yesterday? I would request a response.
Maybe it is obvious to everyone but me why this inmate is not entitled to be heard
“PDQ.” Maybe the State could look at this and respond with some type of quick
explanation such as: “He is no longer incarcerated on the original charge. He was
convicted of another offense while in prison and he is now doing his time on that
conviction.” It might be just that simple. And if the trial court knew that, maybe the trial
court would simply deny the motion on which the inmate wants a ruling. But so that this
In re Chatmon Page 2
Court, and possibly the trial court, and maybe the Court of Criminal Appeals can make
an educated decision about this matter, I would request a response.
For the reasons expressed, I would request a response. Because the Court denies
the relief requested without requesting a response, I respectfully dissent. See In re Rangel,
570 S.W.3d 968, 970-971 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, orig. proceeding) (Gray, C.J.,
concurring).
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Dissenting opinion delivered and filed January 29, 2020
In re Chatmon Page 3