Desilets, Paul Ray
WR-76,998-03
| Tex. App. | Jun 3, 2015Background
- Paul R. Desilets (TDCJ #1581093), appearing pro se, filed an Article 11.07 habeas application in the 359th Judicial District Court, Montgomery County (cause no. 08-12-11262-CR), on October 6, 2014.
- Along with the habeas application he filed motions for discovery, to proceed as a veteran, for appointment of counsel, for hearing by conference call, and to exceed the 15,000-word limit.
- The State initially moved to dismiss; on November 26, 2014 Judge Kathleen Hamilton signed an order designating issues for resolution (including whether Desilets was denied effective assistance of counsel) and ordered trial counsel John E. Choate, Jr. to answer nine questions by affidavit.
- Choate’s affidavit was filed; Desilets filed objections asserting the affidavit was incomplete and the court thereafter failed to rule further or enter findings of fact and conclusions as required by Article 11.07.
- Desilets alleges the trial court has missed the six-month statutory deadline and has refused to rule on his pending motions and objections; he seeks leave to file an original application for writ of mandamus in forma pauperis in the Court of Criminal Appeals to compel the trial judge to perform ministerial duties (enter findings/transmit record and rule on motions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial judge has a ministerial duty under Art. 11.07 to enter findings of fact and transmit the writ record after designating issues and ordering affidavits | Desilets: Judge Hamilton failed to enter findings within the statutory period and therefore may be compelled by mandamus to comply with Article 11.07 | Judge Hamilton (as characterized by pleading): likely discretionary defenses (e.g., court control over process/timing); no ruling appears in the pleading | Relief requested: mandamus to compel entry of findings/transmission. Pleading does not include a final court ruling on the mandamus application. |
| Whether the trial judge must rule on properly filed ancillary motions (discovery, appointment of counsel, veteran status, hearing by conference call) within a reasonable time | Desilets: refusal to rule is a ministerial failure subject to mandamus; motions remain pending without response | Respondent would argue case management discretion or that motions are subsumed in habeas process; not articulated in pleading | Relief requested: mandamus to compel rulings on pending motions. No decision reflected in the document. |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate when a trial court allegedly misses the six‑month statutory deadline for completion of Article 11.07 proceedings | Desilets: missing the statutory six‑month window violates Article 11.07 and supports mandamus to enforce the deadline | Respondent would assert reasons for delay or that timelines are directory or excused; not detailed in the pleading | Desilets seeks writ to enforce the statutory timeline; no disposition shown in the record provided. |
| Whether the applicant has exhausted remedies and may proceed in forma pauperis | Desilets: alleges exhaustion of remedies and submits in forma pauperis declaration showing inability to pay | State/respondent: not presented in pleading; could challenge exhaustion or financial assertions | Applicant requests leave to file mandamus in forma pauperis; the pleading itself does not contain a court ruling on the in forma pauperis request. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lanford v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 847 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (discusses availability of mandamus to compel ministerial acts by trial courts in habeas context)
- McRee v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App.) (legislative directives to trial courts narrow discretion in habeas processing; emphasis on expeditious adjudication)
- Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (orig. proc.) (trial court must consider and rule on motions within a reasonable time; mandamus may issue for undue delay)
- O'Donnelley v. Golden, 860 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1993) (orig. proc.) (holding that ruling on a properly filed motion is a ministerial act subject to mandamus)
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1992) (trial court abuses discretion by refusing to conduct a hearing and render decision on a motion)