in Re Larece Satese Wyatt

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-19-00368-CV
IN RE LARECE SATESE WYATT
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Larece Satese Wyatt has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order
from this Court directing the Honorable Matt Johnson of the 54th Judicial District Court
to grant Wyatt’s motion that sought relief from being forced to pay court-appointed
attorney’s fees.1 Wyatt asserts that the funds are being improperly deducted from his
inmate account because he was previously determined to be indigent.
1
The petition for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. It also
lacks a proper proof of service; a copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties
to the proceeding and must contain proof of service. Id. at 9.5. Because of our disposition and to expedite
it, however, we will implement Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and suspend these rules in this proceeding.
Id. at 2.
 Mandamus relief will be granted only when the record establishes (1) a clear abuse
of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and
adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840-41 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
proceeding); see In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 207
(Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). Wyatt has an adequate remedy at law because the proper
method to attack the trial court’s order is through a direct appeal, not by way of a petition
for writ of mandamus. See Ex parte Knight, 401 S.W.3d 60, 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig.
proceeding); see also Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 (Tex. 2009).
Accordingly, we deny Wyatt’s petition for writ of mandamus.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Mandamus denied
Opinion delivered and filed November 27, 2019
[OT06]
In re Wyatt Page 2