in Re Robert B. Cruz
13-17-00707-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- Robert B. Cruz, pro se, filed a pleading asking this Court to order the Live Oak County Clerk to process his Article 11.07 application for writ of habeas corpus.
- The Court construed Cruz’s filing as a petition for writ of mandamus because he requested the court to command a public officer to act.
- Cruz did not attach an adequate appendix or record as required for mandamus relief and proceeded pro se.
- The Court examined its statutory original-jurisdiction limits and precedent governing mandamus against clerks and Article 11.07 proceedings.
- The Court concluded it lacked original jurisdiction to compel a county clerk in this circumstance and also lacks jurisdiction over pending Article 11.07 applications; relief, if any, lies with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court has mandamus jurisdiction to order the county clerk to process an Article 11.07 application | Cruz asks the court to compel the county clerk to process his Article 11.07 application | The Court contends it lacks original jurisdiction to issue mandamus against a county clerk absent a need to enforce the court’s jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Court lacks authority to compel the county clerk here |
| Whether intermediate appellate court may grant relief regarding processing of a pending Article 11.07 application | Cruz sought court intervention concerning processing of his Article 11.07 writ | The Court notes intermediate appellate courts have limited jurisdiction over Article 11.07 matters and such complaints should be brought to the Court of Criminal Appeals | Court cannot grant relief on a pending Article 11.07; relator must seek mandamus from the Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Whether relator met mandamus procedural requirements (record/appendix, clear argument) | Cruz proceeded pro se and filed a pleading without required appendix/record or supported factual statements | The Court emphasized that relator bears the burden to show entitlement and to supply required record and argument under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure | Relator failed to satisfy procedural burdens; supports dismissal |
| Whether the act sought was ministerial (subject to mandamus) | Cruz treated clerk’s processing as ministerial duty to compel | The Court required a showing that the act sought is purely ministerial and that no adequate legal remedy exists | Relator did not establish the prerequisites for mandamus; relief denied (dismissed) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (mandamus standard: no adequate remedy at law and act must be purely ministerial)
- In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (same mandamus prerequisites reiterated)
- Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, 392 S.W.3d 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (limits on intermediate appellate courts’ jurisdiction over Article 11.07 applications)
- Benson v. District Clerk, 331 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (mandamus against clerk concerning processing of habeas applications belongs in Court of Criminal Appeals)
- Gibson v. Dallas County District Clerk, 275 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (per curiam) (same point regarding proper forum for complaints about clerk processing of post-conviction habeas filings)