in Re Theodis Dodson, Jr.
02-15-00072-CV
Tex. App.Mar 20, 2015Background
- Relator Theodis Dodson Jr. pled guilty to capital murder in 2008 and was sentenced to life without parole; his direct appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
- Dodson sought a free copy of the reporter’s record and sent a request that Judge Evans acknowledged by letter, stating he would forward it to the trial judge.
- Tarrant County clerk records and exhibits submitted by the State show no filed motion for a free reporter’s record and no evidence the trial court received or was presented the motion.
- Dodson filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Second Court of Appeals asking the appellate court to order the trial court to rule on his purported motion for free records.
- The State (real party in interest) moved to deny the mandamus petition, arguing Dodson failed to demonstrate that the motion was filed or brought to the trial court’s attention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator is entitled to mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on a motion for a free reporter’s record | Dodson contends he requested a free reporter’s record and the trial court was notified (via Judge Evans’ letter), so the trial court must be ordered to act | State argues there is no evidence a motion was filed or presented to the trial court; without presentation there is no duty to rule and mandamus is not warranted | Petition denied — relator failed to show the motion was filed or brought to the trial court’s attention, so no mandamus relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. 1994) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only in limited circumstances)
- Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843 (Tex. 1979) (relator must show legal duty, demand, and refusal to act)
- O'Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus issues require proof that the trial court knew of its duty and refused to act)
- In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004) (filing with the clerk alone does not prove presentation to the trial court for ruling)
- In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003) (burden on relator to show the district court knew of its duty and neglected to perform it)