in Re: Antonio Chavez
05-15-01556-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 31, 2015Background
- Relator Antonio Chavez was convicted of aggravated robbery roughly a decade earlier and sentenced to 50 years' confinement.
- Chavez filed a "Motion for Bench Warrant and Evidentiary Hearing" dated August 25, 2015, and sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule.
- The mandamus petition included a minimal record that did not comply with Texas R. App. P. 52.3(k), 52.7, and lacked the certification required by rule 52.3(j).
- The Court explained the mandamus standard in criminal cases: relator must show no adequate remedy at law and that the trial court failed to perform a ministerial (not discretionary) act, i.e., a clear right to relief.
- The court concluded the trial court no longer had general jurisdiction over Chavez’s criminal case (conviction affirmed and mandate issued) and the record showed no pending habeas, DNA, nunc pro tunc, or other matter that would confer special jurisdiction.
- Because Chavez did not establish a ministerial duty or jurisdictional basis for relief, the Court denied the mandamus petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel the trial court to rule on a motion filed Aug 25, 2015 | Chavez: The motion was properly filed and the trial court must rule | Trial court: Lacks jurisdiction; record defective under appellate rules | Denied — relator failed to show a ministerial duty or special jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court has a ministerial duty to notify movant it lacks authority to act | Chavez: Implied entitlement to a ruling or notification | Trial court: No positive duty to advise movant when it lacks authority | Denied — no authority establishes a duty to notify in these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Allen, 462 S.W.3d 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (mandamus standard; ministerial act requirement)
- State ex rel. Weeks v. Courtney, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (clear right to relief standard for mandamus)
- Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (defining clearly controlling legal principles for mandamus)
- State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court must rule on properly filed, timely motions)
- State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (trial court general jurisdiction not restored after appeal mandate issued)