Document Info

DocketNumber: 10-13-00220-CR

Filed Date: 7/25/2013

Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015

  •                                        IN THE
    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-13-00220-CR
    IN RE DARRICK ROSS
    Original Proceeding
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    In this original proceeding for a writ of mandamus, 1 Relator Darrick Ross asserts
    that the respondent trial judge abused his discretion by not granting Ross a personal
    bond or reduced bail in accordance with article 17.151, § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal
    Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.151, § 1(1) (West Supp. 2012); Ex
    parte Avila, 
    201 S.W.3d 824
    , 826 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.).
    This mandamus proceeding arises out of a pretrial application for writ of habeas
    corpus in which Ross sought a personal bond or reduced bail under article 17.151, §
    1
    The petition for writ of mandamus has several deficiencies. It does not include the certification required
    by Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). And while it has an appendix, it lacks a
    certified or sworn record and a properly authenticated transcript of the underlying hearing. See 
    id. 52.7(a). To
    expedite this matter, we implement Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend these
    requirements. 
    Id. 2. 1(1).
    After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge did not grant the requested relief.
    Ross seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the trial judge to grant Ross a personal bond,
    and he alleges that he lacks an adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal.
    “To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show that: (1) he has no
    adequate remedy at law, and (2) what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act.” In re
    State ex rel. Tharp, 
    393 S.W.3d 751
    , 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (orig. proceeding).
    Generally, “mandamus ‘is not a substitute for and cannot be used to perform the office
    of an appeal.’ ” State ex rel. Healey v. McMeans, 
    884 S.W.2d 772
    , 774 (Tex. Crim. App.
    1994) (orig. proceeding).     “But potential review at a later time is not always or
    automatically an adequate remedy: ‘In some cases, a remedy at law may technically
    exist; however, it may nevertheless be so uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow,
    inconvenient, inappropriate, or ineffective as to be deemed inadequate.’ ” Greenwell v.
    Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 
    159 S.W.3d 645
    , 648-49 (Tex. Crim. App.
    2005).
    Ross has a remedy by appeal. See, e.g., 
    Avila, 201 S.W.3d at 826
    . Moreover, the
    available appeal is expedited and thus plainly adequate. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31. Because
    Ross has an adequate remedy at law with an expedited appeal, we deny his petition for
    writ of mandamus.
    REX D. DAVIS
    Justice
    In re Ross                                                                           Page 2
    Before Chief Justice Gray,
    Justice Davis, and
    Justice Scoggins
    Petition denied
    Opinion delivered and filed July 25, 2013
    Do not publish
    [CR25]
    In re Ross                                  Page 3