in Re: Michael Kennedy, 12-17-00067-CR

Relator Michael Kennedy filed an original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus directed to the trial court judge (Respondent) concerning his conviction in Cause No. 29326.
Kennedy raised challenges to sufficiency of the evidence, the indictment, and the trial court’s jurisdiction.
The conviction in Cause No. 29326 has been final for several years and is not currently pending in the trial court.
The mandamus petition amounted to a collateral attack on a final conviction rather than an attempt to compel a present ministerial act by the trial court.
The Court of Appeals reviewed whether mandamus was available and whether Kennedy had shown an adequate remedy at law or a clear right to relief.
The court denied the petition and concluded the relief sought was appropriate only through post-conviction habeas corpus, not mandamus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of mandamus to challenge final conviction	Kennedy sought mandamus to address sufficiency, indictment, jurisdiction errors in Cause No. 29326	Respondent argued the case is final and not pending; judge has no duty to act on a closed case	Denied — mandamus not available for challenges to a final conviction not pending in trial court
Adequacy of remedy at law	Kennedy implicitly argued mandamus necessary to correct alleged errors	Court held Kennedy has no right to mandamus because relief is available only via post-conviction habeas	Denied — Kennedy failed to show lack of adequate remedy at law
Whether requested act is ministerial	Kennedy sought court action on matters requiring judicial determination tied to conviction	Respondent contended requested relief would involve discretionary/judicial decisions, not ministerial acts	Denied — mandamus requires a ministerial act; these requests were judicial and discretionary
Proper vehicle for collateral attack	Kennedy attempted collateral attack via mandamus	Respondent argued collateral attacks on convictions must proceed by post-conviction habeas corpus	Denied — collateral attack via mandamus improper; habeas is correct remedy

State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (mandamus in criminal cases requires no adequate remedy at law and the act sought must be ministerial)
Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (mandamus cannot be used to obtain relief that must be sought by post-conviction habeas corpus)
In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus improper for claims that are collateral attacks on a conviction)
In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus not available when habeas is the exclusive remedy)