In Re James Allen Yates v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-23-00131-CR
IN RE JAMES ALLEN YATES
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
MEMORANDUM OPINION
James Allen Yates filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Honorable
John Tidwell, presiding judge of the 202nd Judicial District Court of Bowie County, Texas.
Yates asks this Court to vacate the trial court’s sua sponte order revoking his bail, forfeiting his
bond, and ordering his arrest. Because Yates failed to provide us with a sufficient record to
support his entitlement to mandamus relief, we deny the petition.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, Yates must show that he has no adequate remedy at
law and that Judge Tidwell had a “ministerial” duty to act. In re State ex rel. Wice, 668 S.W.3d
662, 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (orig. proceeding). To satisfy the ministerial act prong, Yates
must show that “the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal,
well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or case law sources), and clearly
controlling legal principles.” Id. (citation omitted). Yates must show both a request that the
ministerial act be performed and a denial of that request. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710
(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding); see also In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). Yates must provide this Court with a sufficient
record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See In re Fox, 141 S.W.3d 795, 797 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 167–68 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding).
Yates argues that by issuing its sua sponte order, the trial court violated his right to due
process of law, abused its discretion by “arbitrarily finding that Yates[] violated conditions of
his bond,” and violated his rights under the Texas constitution by ordering him held in custody
2
without bail or bond. We have reviewed this petition for a writ of mandamus, the appendix, and
the record before us, and we conclude that Yates has not shown himself entitled to mandamus
relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding). Accordingly, we deny Yates’s petition.1
For the reasons stated, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
Jeff Rambin
Justice
Date Submitted: July 18, 2023
Date Decided: July 19, 2023
Do Not Publish
1
Based on our ruling on Yates’s petition, we deny his motion for an emergency stay of the trial court’s order.
3