Burns, Ari Michael
WR-83,370-02
| Tex. App. | Jun 2, 2015Background
- Relator Ari Michael Burns was arrested (Nov 18, 2014) but not indicted; defense counsel requested discovery under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14 on Dec 12, 2014 and again on Apr 2, 2015.
- Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg (through an assistant) refused to produce discovery for unindicted matters, stating the office policy is to provide discovery only after indictment.
- Article 39.14 (the Michael Morton Act) requires the State to produce and permit inspection of specified materials “as soon as practicable” after a timely defense request.
- Relator asserts the DA’s withholding makes indictment the condition precedent to disclosure and places prosecutors in unilateral control of disclosure timing.
- Relator filed this original petition in the Court of Criminal Appeals seeking mandamus to compel immediate production and prohibition to bar the office policy of withholding discovery until indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DA must produce Article 39.14 discovery “as soon as practicable” for unindicted defendants | Burns: Article 39.14 creates a non‑discretionary duty to produce discovery upon timely request, regardless of indictment status | Lehmberg: Office policy refuses production for unindicted cases and will produce only after indictment | Court (relator seeks): Relator argues a clear right to production and requests mandamus because statute unambiguously requires prompt disclosure; relief appropriate because no adequate alternative remedy exists |
| Whether the DA may condition disclosure on prosecutor’s decision to indict (prohibition relief) | Burns: Conditioning disclosure on indictment violates Article 39.14 and disciplinary rules; court should prohibit that policy | Lehmberg: Policy justified as administrative practice (implicit) | Court (relator seeks): Relator contends policy conflicts with statute and Texas Disciplinary Rule 8.04(a)(12); seeks writ prohibiting the policy |
Key Cases Cited
- De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (appeal ordinarily provides an adequate remedy at law)
- Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999) (district courts lack original mandamus jurisdiction over district attorneys)
- Ex parte Chi, 256 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standards for writs of prohibition)
- Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (restraint for purposes of extraordinary relief)
- In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (mandamus relief when seeking to compel a ministerial act and no adequate remedy at law)
- In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (defining ministerial‑act/clear‑right standard for mandamus)