In Re Khalil M. Bradley-Harris v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-23-00273-CR
__________________
IN RE KHALIL M. BRADLEY-HARRIS
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 22-41272
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator Khalil M. Bradley-Harris
asks this Court to compel the trial court to hold an examining trial. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 16.01 (“The accused in any felony case shall have the right to
an examining trial before indictment in the county having jurisdiction of the
offense[.]”). We deny mandamus relief.1
1
Relator failed to certify that he served a copy of the mandamus petition on
the Respondent and the Real Party in Interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We use Rule
2, however, to look beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See
Tex. R. App. P. 2.
1
Relator states that he has been in custody in the Jefferson County Jail since
December 6, 2022, and that he was indicted on December 14, 2022. He was
appointed counsel in the trial court. Relator complains that neither his lawyer nor the
judge told him he has a right to an examining trial and he says he did not receive an
examining trial before he was indicted.
To be entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator must show that
he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm and he must show that
he seeks to compel a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial
decision. See In re State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at
Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Relator
claims the trial court didn’t provide him with an examining trial, but he does not
show that he ever filed a motion prior to his indictment making his request known
to the trial court in which he now complains. “If a party properly files a motion with
the trial court in a criminal case, the court has a ministerial duty to rule on the motion
within a reasonable time after the motion has been submitted to the court for a ruling
or after the party has requested a ruling.” In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding).
To prevail on a petition for mandamus, a relator must show that he filed a
motion in the trial court requesting the relief addressed in the petition for mandamus.
Id. The relator must also show that he brought his motion to the trial court’s attention
2
for the purpose of having the trial court rule on his motion, and he must demonstrate
the trial court failed to rule on his motion within a reasonable time. Id. That said, if
the person files a motion pro se while he is represented by counsel, “a trial court is
free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by
counsel.” Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
The mandamus record must contain a sworn or certified copy of any order
complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of. See Tex.
R. App P. 52.3(k)(1). A relator must certify that he has reviewed the petition and
concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent
evidence in the appendix or record. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j). Relator’s petition is
not accompanied by an appendix or a certification that complies with Rule
52.3(k)(1). Relator cites section 132.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code
and declares the information in his petition “is true and correct.” Even though section
132.001 allows Relator to file a petition using an unsworn declaration in lieu of an
affidavit, his unsworn declaration does not comply with section 132.001, which
requires the statement: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001(e).
Further, “the return of an indictment terminates any right to an examining
trial.” See State ex rel. Holmes v. Salinas, 784 S.W.2d 421, 427 (Tex. Crim. App.
1990) (orig. proceeding). Relator states that he was indicted on December 14, 2022.
3
Thus, the trial court does not have a ministerial duty to conduct an examining trial.
See id.Relator failed to establish a right to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny
the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on August 29, 2023
Opinion Delivered August 30, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
4