in Re: Buford Tyrone Blaylock
12-17-00160-CV
| Tex. App. | May 31, 2017Background
- Relator Buford Tyrone Blaylock sought mandamus relief after the trial court ordered the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account.
- He also sought a ruling on a motion to rescind those withdrawal orders and alleged the trial court refused to rule.
- The relator filed these original mandamus proceedings in the Court of Appeals, Twelfth District (Tyler).
- The record submitted to the appellate court did not contain the motion to rescind or the objections the relator claimed to have filed.
- The court treated the claim challenging the fund-withdrawal orders as an issue properly reviewed on appeal rather than by mandamus.
- Because the record did not show the trial court had been called to act on the rescission motion, the relator failed to show the court had a nondiscretionary duty to rule that had been violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus can compel reversal of trial court orders directing withdrawal from inmate trust account | Blaylock argued the orders were improper and sought mandamus to prevent/undo withdrawals | State/trial court implicitly argued such post-judgment enforcement is reviewable on appeal, not by mandamus | Mandamus is inappropriate for challenging withdrawal orders; review should be by appeal |
| Whether mandamus can compel the trial court to rule on Blaylock's motion to rescind | Blaylock contended he filed the motion and the court refused to rule | Respondent argued the record does not show the motion was before the court, so no duty to act was established | Denied: relator failed to show the court had notice or was called to act; no nondiscretionary duty proven |
Key Cases Cited
- In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus standards: abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy)
- Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) (post-judgment enforcement actions concerning inmate trust withdrawals are for appeal, not mandamus)
- In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (to compel a court to rule, relator must show court had nondiscretionary duty, was asked, and failed to act)
- In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (relator must establish the motion was called to the court's attention for duty to consider to arise)