in Re: Sugar Ray Franklin
05-16-01390-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 9, 2016Background
- Relator Sugar Ray Franklin filed an application for writ of mandamus seeking trial-court action: copies of an affidavit relied on in findings of fact/conclusions of law and a grand jury transcript in cause No. F11-55114-T.
- The mandamus petition did not include the certification, appendix, or record required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j), 52.3(k), and 52.7.
- The Court notes relator did not provide evidence that he filed objections to the trial court’s findings, requested the affidavit or grand jury transcript from the trial court, or otherwise brought these matters to the trial court’s attention for a ruling.
- Relator alleges the trial court has delayed; his request for the grand jury transcript was purportedly filed October 13, 2016, and objections to findings were submitted after October 31, 2016.
- The appellate court considered the procedural deficiencies dispositive but addressed the merits and concluded relator failed to establish entitlement to mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to mandamus relief | Franklin contends the trial court must provide affidavit and grand jury transcript and rule on his objections | Trial court has discretion and a reasonable time to act; no ministerial duty shown | Denied — relator did not show trial court violated a ministerial duty or lack of adequate remedy at law |
| Sufficiency of mandamus record | Franklin submitted the application but omitted required certification, appendix, and record | Appellate rules require a complete record and relator bears burden to provide it | Denied — procedural deficiencies alone justified denial; relator failed to meet burden to establish entitlement |
| Failure to present matters to trial court / refusal to act | Franklin argues trial court unreasonably delayed and refused to act on his requests | No evidence relator brought motions/objections to court’s attention or demanded rulings; trial court entitled to reasonable time | Denied — relator produced no evidence of demand or refusal; petition was premature given timing of filings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus standard in criminal cases: ministerial duty + no adequate legal remedy)
- Lizcano v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (relator bears burden to provide sufficient mandamus record)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator must provide record showing entitlement to relief)
- In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (requirements to obtain mandamus for refusal to act)
- Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843 (Tex. 1979) (elements for mandamus to compel ministerial act)
- In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (trial court entitled to reasonable time to rule)
- In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (same)
- Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (reasonableness of court’s time to rule depends on circumstances)
- In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (six-month delay not necessarily unreasonable)