in Re: Cleveland Nixon, 05-15-00263-CV

Relator Cleveland Nixon filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the court to order the trial court to sign a written order on his motion for bond pending appeal after the trial court orally denied the motion.
The denial of bail appears in the trial court’s docket entry and a hearing transcript, but no written, signed order exists.
The State agreed that no written order was signed and conceded that mandamus is appropriate.
The appellate court explained that a written, signed order is required for the entry of an appealable order under Texas appellate procedure and controlling criminal-appellate law.
The appellate court concluded the trial court has a ministerial duty to reduce its oral ruling to a signed written order so the relator can perfect an appeal and conditionally granted mandamus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court must sign a written order memorializing denial of bond pending appeal	Nixon: A signed written order is required so he can perfect an appeal	State: Agrees no written order was signed and mandamus is appropriate	Court: Trial court has ministerial duty to sign written order; mandamus conditionally granted
Whether a docket entry or oral pronouncement suffices as entry of an appealable order	Nixon: Docket entry/transcript insufficient for appeal entry	State: Did not dispute insufficiency here	Court: Docket entries and oral rulings are not substitutes for signed written orders
Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel signing	Nixon: Mandamus is proper because no adequate remedy by appeal exists until order is signed	State: Agreed mandamus appropriate	Court: Mandamus appropriate because signing is a ministerial act and no adequate remedy exists

State v. Shaw, 4 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999) (written order required for appeal)
State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (entry of order requires signing by the trial judge)
In re Fuentes, 960 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997) (order recorded when reduced to writing, signed, and entered)
Energo Int'l Corp. v. Modern Indus. Heating, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 149 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986) (docket entries are memoranda and not part of the record)
State of Tex. ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 67 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (mandamus in criminal cases when remedy on appeal inadequate and act is ministerial)
Greene v. State, 324 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (signing memorializing order is ministerial)
State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (mandamus proper when trial court refuses to sign written order needed for appeal)