in Re Raymond Lights
13-22-00094-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 10, 2022Background
- Pro se relator Raymond Lights asked the court to order the district clerk to file his notice of appeal from an “Order on Agreed Finding of Incompetency.”
- The district clerk returned the notice to Lights, stating the order was not subject to appeal.
- The Court construed Lights’s filings as a petition for writ of mandamus because the underlying matter did not appear to involve a final, appealable judgment.
- The court summarized mandamus standards in criminal cases: the relator must show the requested act is ministerial (not discretionary) and that there is no adequate legal remedy; the relator also must meet appellate filing and record/appendix requirements.
- The Court noted it lacks authority to issue a writ against a district clerk unless necessary to enforce the Court’s jurisdiction over an appeal.
- The Court denied the mandamus petition, finding Lights failed to comply with appellate rules and failed to show mandamus was necessary to enforce the Court’s jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district clerk must file Lights’s notice of appeal | Lights: clerk should file the notice | Clerk returned notice because the order is not appealable | Denied — relator didn’t show clerk’s act is ministerial or that appeal existed |
| Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel filing | Lights: mandamus to compel filing | Clerk/State: mandamus not warranted because order not appealable and court lacks jurisdiction | Denied — relator failed to show mandamus necessary to enforce jurisdiction |
| Whether the order appealed is a final, appealable judgment | Lights: attempted appeal of incompetency order | Clerk/authority: no rule or statute authorizes appeal from the order; appeals generally require final judgment | Court: no showing the order was appealable |
| Whether Lights met appellate rules (statement of facts, appendix, record) | Lights: filed pleadings seeking relief | Court: pleadings did not satisfy Rules 52.3/52.7 requirements | Denied — procedural deficiencies; insufficient appendix/record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383 (2020) (mandamus standard in criminal cases: ministerial act and no adequate remedy)
- In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701 (2013) (discussing mandamus relief prerequisites)
- State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207 (2007) (relator bears burden to show entitlement to mandamus)
- In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93 (2006) (appellate court generally cannot issue writ against district clerk unless necessary to enforce jurisdiction)
- Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446 (1961) (appeals by criminal defendants generally require a final judgment)