Opinion
No. 06-21-00022-CR
05-28-2021
IN RE ANTHONY WASHINGTON
Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION Anthony Washington petitions this Court for mandamus relief, asking that we compel the trial court to respond to a motion for a speedy trial that Washington claims to have filed. Because Washington has provided this Court no supporting documents, he has failed to show himself entitled to mandamus relief. We deny his petition.
Washington also refers to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.14. In his petition's prayer, Washington asks that we compel the trial court to remove detainers allegedly in place against him.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that he has no adequate remedy at law and (2) that the action he seeks to compel is ministerial, not one involving a discretionary or judicial decision. 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). The relator is obligated to provide this Court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198-99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Before mandamus may issue, the relator must show that the trial court had a legal duty to perform a ministerial act, was asked to do so, and failed or refused to act. 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) ("Showing that a motion was filed with the court clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial court's attention or presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling.").
Washington claims that the Respondent trial court "has failed and refused to respond" to one or more motions Washington says he filed in said court. One of these motions, according to Washington, is a motion for a speedy trial. He has submitted nothing to this Court demonstrating that anything was filed with the trial court. There is no certified copy of the motion he claims to have filed with the trial court. Washington has submitted nothing to this Court demonstrating that he ever filed any motions in the trial court. "In order for mandamus to issue, the party seeking mandamus must show that there is no other adequate remedy available and that the act sought to be mandated is ministerial." Whitsitt v. Ramsay, 719 S.W.2d 333, 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
See TEX. R. APP. 52.3(d).
Washington thus has failed to demonstrate that he lacks an adequate remedy at law or that he is entitled to the extraordinary relief sought. We deny his requested relief.
Josh R. Morriss,
III
Chief Justice Date Submitted: May 27, 2021 Date Decided: May 28, 2021 Do Not Publish