in Re the State of Texas Ex Rel. John Creuzot, Criminal District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed May 26, 2021
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00376-CV
IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. JOHN CREUZOT, CRIMINAL
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
Original Proceeding from the 283rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F19-40504-T
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle
Opinion by Justice Myers
Before the Court is the State’s May 25, 2021 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
and Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief. In its petition, the State requests the
Court compel the trial court to vacate its order issued under article 39.14 of the code
of criminal procedure compelling the State to notify the defense of the approximate
dates, locations, and conduct of the predicate acts the State will rely upon to
prosecute the defendant on a charge of continuous sexual abuse.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show (1) it has no adequate
remedy at law and (2) what it seeks is a ministerial act. In re State ex rel. Weeks,
391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). An act is ministerial if the relator has
a clear right to the relief sought. Id. The relator has a clear right to relief when the
facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal, well-
settled, and clearly controlling legal principles. See id.After reviewing the State’s petition and the record, we conclude the State has
not carried its burden to show the trial court violated a ministerial duty in issuing the
discovery order. See id.; see also In re State ex rel. Skurka, 512 S.W.3d 444, 447
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2016, orig. proceeding) (concluding discovery order
under article 39.14 requiring State to designate which jail recordings it would admit
into evidence at trial did not exceed scope of trial court’s authority so as to justify
mandamus relief in light of standard of review, work-product doctrine, facts and
circumstances of case, and trial court’s discretion in determining issues related to
discovery).
We deny the State’s petition for writ of mandamus. Having denied the State’s
petition, we also deny as moot the State’s emergency motion for temporary relief.
/Lana Myers/
LANA MYERS
JUSTICE
210376F.P05
–2–