in Re Timothy Lynn Tate
09-16-00455-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 28, 2016Background
- Timothy Lynn Tate was convicted of aggravated assault; the trial court’s final judgment included an affirmative deadly-weapon finding.
- Tate filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the appellate court to compel the trial court to remove the deadly-weapon finding, claiming it was unauthorized and adversely affected his sentence.
- The jury charge did not explicitly ask for a deadly-weapon finding; Tate contends one should not have been entered in the judgment.
- Tate did not raise the deadly-weapon finding on direct appeal from his conviction.
- The Court of Appeals noted that, depending on indictment language, evidence, and charge, a deadly-weapon finding may be inferred from a conviction for aggravated assault.
- Tate failed to provide all required appellate record documents and did not show he had no adequate remedy at law or that the trial court breached a purely ministerial duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by including an affirmative deadly-weapon finding in the judgment | Tate: judgment improperly includes a deadly-weapon finding though jury was not asked; it altered his sentence | Trial court/State: record may permit inference that jury found a deadly weapon was used; inclusion may be proper | Court: Tate did not show a clear right to mandamus relief; petition denied |
| Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy | Tate: no adequate remedy at law; mandamus should correct unauthorized sentence | State: direct appeal remedies existed; whether error occurred is debatable and judicial, not ministerial | Court: mandamus denied because Tate failed to show the trial court acted beyond judicial discretion and failed Rule 52.3(k)(1) requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Duran v. State, 492 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. Crim. App.) (explains when a deadly-weapon finding can be inferred from other jury findings)
- Brister v. State, 449 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. Crim. App.) (addresses appellate review of deadly-weapon findings)
- Crumpton v. State, 301 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. Crim. App.) (held a deadly-weapon finding may be necessarily inferred in certain contexts)
- State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sets mandamus standards in criminal contexts)
- In re Brown, 343 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. Crim. App.) (distinguishes ministerial from judicial acts for mandamus relief)
- Simon v. Levario, 306 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App.) (explains relator must demonstrate a clear right to relief before ordering a trial court to perform a judicial act)