in Re Donny Joe Curry
06-15-00080-CR
| Tex. App. | May 18, 2015Background
- Relator Donny-Joe Curry (pro se) seeks a writ of mandamus and other relief challenging prosecutions in Hunt County arising from vehicle-registration and license-related charges. He asserts he is trustee/beneficiary of the DONNY JOE CURRY trust and that financial instruments were tendered to discharge the charges.
- Curry alleges municipal officers (including Judge Andrew Bench and others) received or ignored bonded instruments and thus breached fiduciary duties by refusing to apply funds to close the cases. He requests records, unsealing of instruments, return of an impounded personal vehicle, and release of sureties.
- Procedurally, Curry filed the petition in the Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) seeking emergency mandamus to compel ministerial acts (nunc pro tunc adjustments to records and application of tendered instruments) and to investigate alleged misconduct by public officials. He frames the underlying prosecutions as fraudulent and unlawful.
- Legal arguments by Curry include (1) prior tenders of bonds/notes (claimed as discharging the debts), (2) statutory and common-law distinctions between commercial and private vehicle regulation (challenging Texas licensing/registration authority), and (3) violations by officials of fiduciary duties and criminal statutes under color of law.
- Curry relies on doctrines of tender/discharge, operation of law, and prior Texas criminal decisions (arguing there is no true "driver's license" in Texas law) to claim the prosecutions were improper and warrant mandamus relief and other equitable remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to issue mandamus against county/court officials | Appellate court has jurisdiction to compel ministerial acts and correct records; clear abuse of discretion present | Respondents would argue no extraordinary relief warranted or issues are fact-bound | Court may exercise mandamus jurisdiction in clear ministerial-duty failures; claimant must show right to relief and lack of adequate remedy at law |
| Effect of tendered financial instruments (bond/registered note) to discharge charges | Tendered bonds/notes discharged liabilities; officials' refusal to accept constitutes default and breach | Officials did not accept or recognize instruments as valid payment; instruments insufficient under governing law | Acceptance or legal efficacy of a tender depends on validity and operative law; mere tender may not automatically extinguish charges without proper legal recognition |
| Validity of vehicle-license/registration charges under Texas law | Texas statutes distinguish commercial versus private travel; Relator asserts constitutional right to travel and that no statute created obligation to obtain a commercial license here | State/municipal authorities assert statutory authority to enforce registration and licensing rules against drivers | Whether statutory elements were met is a legal/ factual inquiry; prior Texas cases limit some formulations, but courts generally treat licensing statutes as valid exercises of state power when statutory elements are pleaded/proven |
| Request to unseal financial instruments / appoint Master in Chancery / order return of vehicle | Relator seeks unsealing and application of the instruments, reimbursement of fees, and appointment of a master to resolve trust/claims | Respondents oppose extraordinary relief and contest the merits and procedural posture for such remedies | Extraordinary equitable relief (unsealing, appointment, immediate application of funds) requires proof of clear right and proper legal basis; courts require adequate record and lawful basis before granting such remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- American Bituminous & Asphalt Co. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 703 (Cust. Ct.) (describing "operation of law" and its effect on rights)
- Barber v. State, 191 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. Crim. App.) (insufficiency of complaint for failure to allege license display when required)
- Callas v. State, 320 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. Crim. App.) (treating conceptions of "driver's license" in state criminal context)
- Hassell v. State, 194 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. Crim. App.) (criminal-possession/licensing discussion in Texas)