in Re: David Mark Davis, II, 12-16-00224-CR

Davis was convicted of speeding in Lufkin Municipal Court, appealed to the county court at law, which after a trial de novo again found him guilty and fined him $100.00.
Davis attempted to appeal that county-court judgment to the Court of Appeals; that appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Davis filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the 217th District Court seeking vacation of his conviction; the district judge denied relief.
Davis appealed the denial of habeas relief to this Court; the Court held he was not confined, restrained, or subject to collateral legal consequences and thus not entitled to habeas relief.
Davis then filed a mandamus petition arguing the district judge had a ministerial duty to grant habeas relief and vacate the conviction.
The Court considered whether granting habeas relief was a ministerial duty and denied mandamus, concluding the judge acted within discretion because the prerequisites for habeas relief were absent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent had a ministerial duty to grant habeas relief	Davis: the court was required to grant habeas and vacate his conviction	Judge: duty to rule existed, but no ministerial duty to grant relief; decision is discretionary	Denied — no ministerial duty to grant habeas relief
Whether Davis was entitled to habeas corpus relief	Davis: conviction should be vacated via habeas	Respondent: Davis was not confined, restrained, or facing collateral legal consequences	Held Davis was not entitled to habeas because the requisite confinement/restraint or collateral consequences were absent
Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel vacation of conviction	Davis: mandamus should compel ministerial act of vacating conviction	Court: mandamus requires purely ministerial duty and lack of other remedy; not met here	Mandamus denied — relief sought was discretionary, not purely ministerial
Whether denial of habeas abused discretion	Davis: denial was incorrect	Respondent: denial within court’s discretion given legal standards	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed

In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus requires ministerial duty and no adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (definition of ministerial duty)
State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (merits of relief must be beyond dispute for mandamus)
In re Mendoza, 467 S.W.3d 76 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (trial court must rule but is not required to rule a specific way)
Ex parte McGowen, 645 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (habeas corpus examines lawfulness of confinement)
Ex parte Alt, 958 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998) (granting or denying habeas is discretionary)
Ex parte Rinkevich, 222 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (no habeas relief where no confinement or collateral consequences)