in Re: Ronald W. Riddle
05-17-00788-CV
Tex. App.Jul 18, 2017Background
- Relator Ronald W. Riddle was convicted in 2003 of second-degree burglary of a habitation and did not appeal his conviction.
- In 2017 Riddle sought to prepare and file a state habeas petition based on newly discovered information and requested the trial court and district clerk provide the trial-court record and the cost to prepare it.
- Riddle filed a motion in the trial court requesting preparation of the record and separately asked the clerk and trial court for cost information and copies.
- Riddle petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to rule on his motion and directing the district clerk and trial court to provide costs and the record.
- The Court examined whether the trial court had jurisdiction (general or special) to act and whether mandamus would be appropriate to compel ministerial action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court must rule on Riddle's motion to prepare the record | Riddle: trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly filed motion | Trial court: lacks jurisdiction because the criminal conviction is final and no pending matter vests special jurisdiction | Denied — trial court lacks general or special jurisdiction, so no ministerial duty to rule |
| Whether appellate court may compel the district clerk to provide cost information for preparing the record | Riddle: appellate mandamus should direct the clerk to provide cost and produce the record | Court: it lacks mandamus jurisdiction over the clerk absent interference with appellate jurisdiction | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction — no pending appeal so appellate jurisdiction not at risk |
| Whether Riddle has an adequate remedy at law for these requests | Riddle: needs record to prepare habeas petition; mandamus is appropriate | Respondent: relator has not shown entitlement to mandamus because relief is ministerial only when court has jurisdiction | Held: Riddle did not meet mandamus standards because trial court lacks authority to act |
| Whether the trial court retained any special post-conviction jurisdiction to order the record produced | Riddle: impliedly argued post-conviction matters (habeas) could vest jurisdiction | Respondent: no pending habeas, DNA, nunc pro tunc, or other matter to confer special jurisdiction | Held: No special jurisdiction shown; trial court cannot grant the motion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Allen, 462 S.W.3d 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (mandamus standards; ministerial v. discretionary acts)
- State ex rel. Weeks v. Court of Appeals, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (defining clear right to relief for mandamus)
- Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standards for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court’s duty to rule on properly filed motions)
- State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (effect of finality on trial-court jurisdiction)
- State v. Dunbar, 269 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008) (finality and restoration of jurisdiction), aff’d, 297 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (affirming finality analysis)