in Re: Donald Adkins
12-15-00180-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 13, 2015Background
- Relator Donald Adkins, a pro se inmate (TDCJ No. 1792685), filed an original application for writ of mandamus in the Twelfth Court of Appeals (Tyler) against Sabine County District Judge Charles R. Mitchell and District Attorney J. Kevin Dutton.
- Adkins alleges he first learned of Sabine County charges in August 2011 and that counsel was asked to invoke speedy-trial rights; he later mailed motions for speedy trial and bench warrants on October 17 and November 20, 2012.
- He says he mailed a Motion to Dismiss on December 16, 2013, and sent follow-up letters and requests to the clerk and judge in 2014, but received no responses.
- Adkins claims the respondents have failed to perform ministerial duties to protect his due-process and speedy-trial rights, and that Sabine County has placed ‘‘holders’’/warrants against him that affect parole review and privileges.
- He seeks a writ directing respondents to secure his constitutional rights and to dismiss, with prejudice, all pending charges, complaints, indictments, warrants, and holds against him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondents failed to perform a ministerial duty to secure speedy-trial and due-process rights | Adkins: he filed timely written motions and notices; the court/DA failed to act, so mandamus is appropriate to compel dismissal with prejudice | Respondents: record contains no responsive filings in this application; no argument presented in this petition | Application requests mandamus relief; no appellate ruling included in the record provided |
| Whether delay prejudiced defendant's ability to defend (speedy-trial violation) | Adkins: lengthy lapse and nonresponse prejudiced memory, witnesses, and defense; statutory/constitutional speedy-trial periods triggered dismissal | Respondents: (not set forth in petition) likely would argue no violation or justification for delay | Adkins alleges prejudice and requests dismissal; no final adjudication in this filing |
| Whether mandamus is the proper remedy (lack of other adequate remedy) | Adkins: he exhausted remedies and has no adequate ordinary remedy, so mandamus is necessary to compel ministerial action | Respondents: (not included) could contend other remedies exist or that actions were discretionary | Petition contends mandamus is the only viable remedy; no court resolution shown here |
| Relief sought (dismissal with prejudice; removal of holds) | Adkins: ask court to order dismissal of all counts/holders and direct compliance with constitutional speedy-trial and due-process mandates | Respondents: (not presented) would oppose dismissal absent court finding of constitutional violation | Relief is requested in the application; record contains no appellate disposition included in the document provided |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (speedy-trial balancing test)
- Zuniga v. Zuniga, 13 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. App. 1999) (treats pro se pleading standards in Texas appellate practice)
- Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App. 1992) (holding on leniency toward pro se pleadings)
- Birdo v. DeBose, 819 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. App. 1991) (same)