in Re Sylvia Martinez, WR-83,996-01

Sylvia Martinez was charged with prostitution under Tex. Penal Code § 43.02; indictment Feb 26, 2015.
Martinez filed a pre-trial application for writ of habeas corpus on June 5, 2015, the date set for trial.
Trial court denied the writ on June 8, 2015; Martinez then sought mandamus from the Fourth Court of Appeals.
Fourth Court granted mandamus August 26, 2015, ordering the trial court to rule on the writ or allow Martinez to file elsewhere.
State argues pre-trial writs are discretionary and Martinez had an adequate remedy by filing in another court if denied.
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is asked to rescind the Fourth Court’s mandamus and reaffirm trial court discretion over pre-trial writs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Fourth Court abuse discretion in issuing mandamus?	Martinez had an adequate remedy elsewhere; writ was improper.	Fourth Court correctly held trial court must rule promptly to avoid double jeopardy delays.	No abuse; mandamus proper remedy not warranted; but the issue is addressed as part of discretionary analysis.
Is a pre-trial writ of habeas corpus discretionary for trial courts?	Trial court discretion exists; decision to issue writ is not ministerial.	Pre-trial writs require timely action and can be mandatory in some contexts.	Trial court has discretion; pre-trial writs are not mandated by operation of law.
Was Martinez’s remedy adequate if the trial court refused the writ?	Mandamus was needed because no other adequate remedy existed.	Martinez could file the writ in another court; there was an adequate remedy.	Martinez had an adequate remedy; mandamus should not have been used as the sole remedy.

Ex parte Carter, 849 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993) (writ issuance is a prerequisite to court hearing the merits)
Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (pre-trial writs discretionary; remedy not automatic)
Ex parte McCullough, 966 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (pre-trial writs may be declined; discretion retained by trial courts)
Ex parte Rodriguez, 980 S.W.2d 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (concurring opinion notes extraordinary facts may justify mandamus)
Villanueva v. State, 252 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (adequate remedy principle; mandamus is drastic remedy)
State ex rel. Healey v. McMeans, 884 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (mandamus thresholds; extraordinary situations)
In re Piper, 105 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003) (mandamus not proper where ordinary habeas avenue exists)
In re Altschul, 236 S.W.3d 453 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007) (special circumstances may justify mandamus; not present here)
Von Kolb v. Koehler, 609 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1980) (historical note on mandamus availability in certain paths)