Carballo, Leeroy Cesar
WR-83,506-01
| Tex. App. | Jun 25, 2015Background
- Relator Leeroy Cesar Carballo, a Texas inmate (TDCJ-CID #1462910), filed a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus (Art. 11.07) in Harris County assigned cause No. 1097497-A (filed Sept. 28, 2011).
- The State moved to designate issues (ineffective assistance at trial and on appeal); the trial court adopted the State's proposed order designating issues.
- On Nov. 2, 2013 Carballo mailed an amended/supplemented 11.07 application, a memorandum of law, and eight exhibits to the Harris County District Clerk; certified-mail return receipt shows delivery on Nov. 6, 2013.
- Carballo repeatedly wrote the district clerk (March–June 2014 and May 2015) requesting that the amended application be filed, assigned a cause number if needed, and forwarded to the trial court or Court of Criminal Appeals; he received no confirmation that the amended filings were filed or forwarded.
- Carballo contends the district clerk had a purely ministerial duty under Art. 11.07 §3(b) to receive, file-stamp, and forward his amended application; he seeks mandamus relief directing the clerk to file/forward the November 2013 materials and produce the docket sheet.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carballo) | Defendant's Argument (District Clerk) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the district clerk have a ministerial duty to receive, file, and forward an amended Art. 11.07 application? | Clerk had a ministerial duty under Art. 11.07 §3(b) to file-stamp and forward the Nov. 2013 amended application and exhibits. | (Implied) Clerk may have internal procedures about assigning numbers or treating filings as subsequent writs; no response provided in record. | Court: (Relator grounds his mandamus petition on established authority that the clerk’s duty is ministerial; relief appropriate if duty violated and no adequate remedy at law.) |
| Was Carballo’s Nov. 2013 mailing properly received and presenting a compliant amended application rather than a subsequent writ? | The certified-mail receipt (signed Nov. 6, 2013) proves delivery; the filing should be treated as an amended/compliant application for consideration. | Clerk failed to confirm or process the filing; no record of forwarding. | Court: Acceptance and forwarding are ministerial duties; a failure to do so can support mandamus when shown. |
| Can an inmate proceeding pro se and indigent be excused from TRAP Rule 9.3(b)’s multiple-copy requirement? | Carballo asked the Court of Criminal Appeals to suspend TRAP 9.3(b) under TRAP 2 due to incarceration/indigence and seek leave to file a single original with carbon copies served on parties. | (Implied) Court rules generally require compliance with TRAP; defendant likely to assert rules must be followed absent relief. | Court: TRAP 2 may be invoked to suspend procedural rules when justified; courts routinely grant reasonable accommodations for incarcerated indigent filers in similar contexts. |
| Is mandamus an appropriate remedy where the clerk allegedly failed to perform ministerial duties and no adequate remedy at law exists? | Carballo asserts no adequate remedy at law (no appeal from clerk’s inaction); seeks mandamus to compel filing/forwarding and docket information. | (Implied) The clerk might argue discretion or internal processing, but failure to file/forward has been treated as ministerial in precedent. | Court: Mandamus is appropriate when the act is ministerial and no adequate remedy exists; precedents cited support relief in such circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to a pending post-conviction Art. 11.07 application)
- Aranda v. District Clerk, Gaines County, 207 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (district clerk’s duty to receive and forward habeas applications is ministerial)
- DeLeon v. District Clerk, Lynn County, 187 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (same: clerk’s obligations under Art. 11.07 are ministerial)
- Benson v. District Clerk, Montgomery County, 331 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (whether other applications are pending is irrelevant to the clerk’s duty to receive, file, and forward Art. 11.07 applications)
- Winters v. Presiding Judge, 118 S.W.3d 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (mandamus relief is appropriate where the act sought to be compelled is ministerial and there is no adequate remedy at law)