Lewis, John Edward, WR-83,367-02

Background

Relator John Edward Lewis was arrested Jan. 15, 2015 for alleged felon-in-possession; he has not been indicted. Defense counsel requested discovery under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14 on Feb. 26, 2015.
Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg (through an assistant) refused to produce discovery for unindicted cases, stating office policy to provide discovery only after indictment.
Lewis filed a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking to compel immediate production “as soon as practicable” under Article 39.14 and to prohibit the DA’s policy of withholding discovery until indictment.
Relator argues Article 39.14 imposes a ministerial, non-discretionary duty to produce discovery once timely requested, regardless of indictment status, and that he lacks any adequate alternative remedy.
Relator also relies on the Texas Disciplinary Rules (Rule 8.04) and an ethics opinion concluding prosecutors may not impose preconditions to Article 39.14 disclosures.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lewis)	Defendant's Argument (Lehmberg)	Held / Relief Sought
Whether the State must produce discovery "as soon as practicable" under Art. 39.14 for unindicted defendants	Art. 39.14's plain language imposes a ministerial duty to produce discovery after a timely request; indictment is not a statutory precondition	Office policy: do not send discovery in unindicted cases; wait until indictment	Relator seeks a writ compelling production now and prohibiting the post-arrest-but-pre-indictment withholding policy
Whether mandamus/prohibition is the appropriate remedy	No adequate alternative: district court lacks jurisdiction before indictment; appeal unavailable; only CCA can issue writs against a district attorney under these circumstances	DA has discretion in charging; contends office procedures control timing	Relator contends mandamus/prohibition is proper; petition asks CCA to exercise that authority
Whether the DA's policy violates professional rules/ethics	Withholding discovery until indictment imposes an unlawful precondition and violates Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct Rule 8.04 and State Bar ethics opinion	DA's policy is an internal office practice intended to control disclosures before formal charging	Relator relies on ethics opinion to show clear right to relief and professional-rule violation
Whether the court may prohibit the DA from conditioning discovery on indictment	Statute and ethics authority prohibit unilateral preconditions; court may enjoin such policy	DA may argue prosecutorial autonomy and charging discretion	Relator requests prohibition of the office policy; petition seeks permanent bar against withholding until indictment

Key Cases Cited

De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (discusses adequacy of appellate remedies and mandamus standards)
Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999) (addresses limits on appellate courts' mandamus jurisdiction over district attorneys)
Ex parte Chi, 256 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standards for writ of prohibition and adequacy of remedies)
Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (restraint for purposes of extraordinary relief)
In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (ministerial-act requirement and clear right to relief for mandamus)
In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (definition of "clear right" and ministerial duty for mandamus)