ALBERT, VERLEE Jr.
WR-71,485-10
| Tex. | Jul 16, 2015Background
- Relator Albert Verlee Jr. seeks a writ of mandamus against the judge of the 211th District Court of Denton County, Texas.
- Relator contends the trial court erred by quashing an Agg. Robbery indictment/information and thus lacking jurisdiction to proceed.
- Relator argues the quash order was a structural error and jurisdiction cannot be cured by waiver.
- Relator asserts the court ignored the fact that after quashing the indictment the trial court had no authority to proceed.
- Relator seeks mandamus relief to force a jurisdictional hearing and to challenge the trial court’s actions that followed the quash order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to address a claimed jurisdictional error. | Verlee asserts mandamus is appropriate for a clear abuse of discretion. | Shipman argues discretionary ruling may be reviewed only by appeal. | Mandamus available for clear abuse of discretion; court reviews jurisdictional claims. |
| Whether the indictment was properly quashed and what effect that has on jurisdiction. | Verlee argues quashment removed trial court’s jurisdiction. | Court maintains it retained some authority despite quashment. | Once an indictment is quashed, trial court lacks jurisdiction to proceed on the charge. |
| Whether jurisdiction can be raised at any time or is waivable. | Verlee relies on non-waivability of jurisdiction. | Respondent contends jurisdiction can be challenged within procedural limits. | Jurisidiction can be raised at any time and cannot be waived in appropriate contexts. |
| Whether the denial of relief in habeas corpus proceedings violated due process or statutory requirements. | Verlee contends habeas corpus denial was improper given jurisdiction issues. | State argues proper procedures were followed. | Relief denied in habeas corpus context due to jurisdictional considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (original jurisdiction for mandamus when there is a clear abuse of discretion by a trial court)
- Rodriquez v. State, 42 S.W.3d 181 (Tex.App. Corpus Christi 2001) (jurisdiction cannot be waived; court must address lack of jurisdiction)
- Prochazka v. State, 878 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1994) (when indictment is quashed, trial court lacks authority to reinstate it)
- McAfee v. State, 363 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.Crim.App. 1963) (charging instrument and jurisdictional requirements)
- Thomas v. State, 751 S.W.2d 601 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1988) (statutory interpretation and jurisdictional functions in criminal proceedings)