Padieu, Philippe, Relator v. Court of Appeals of Texas, 5th District
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 487
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Relator Philippe Padieu filed a mandamus application in the Court of Criminal Appeals after the Fifth Court of Appeals dismissed his petitions for writs of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
- Relator sought to compel the Fifth Court of Appeals to consider his petitions on the merits, relating to a district judge’s handling of a motion for access to a trial record intended for future Article 11.07 habeas proceedings.
- The Fifth Court of Appeals dismissed, ruling it lacked jurisdiction because the underlying motions concerned post-conviction relief under Article 11.07 and thus exceeded its authority.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held it has mandamus authority in criminal-law matters and that concurrent jurisdiction allowed relator to seek mandamus relief against a district judge in the appellate court before pursuing Article 11.07 relief.
- The court applied a de novo review standard when reviewing an appellate court’s mandamus decision, while recognizing the traditional two-prong test for mandamus relief.
- The Court conditionally grants mandamus and directs the Fifth Court of Appeals to rescind its dismissal and consider the merits of the mandamus petitions within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fifth Court had jurisdiction over Padieu’s mandamus petition. | Padieu asserts appellate jurisdiction exists over mandamus against a district judge. | Fifth Court argued lack of jurisdiction due to pending Article 11.07 considerations and scope limits. | Yes; appellate court may hear mandamus petitions when no pending Article 11.07 application. |
| Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals may grant mandamus to compel a district judge to act on a motion related to future habeas proceedings. | Padieu seeks to require action on a motion for access to materials for potential habeas relief. | Appellate court should defer because Article 11.07 controls post-conviction relief. | Yes; mandamus proper where no pending Article 11.07 application and action on a motion could affect future habeas relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (concurrent jurisdiction permits mandamus against district judge in appellate court)
- State ex rel Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (mandamus review limits and appellate jurisdiction principles)
- Jacolos v. State, 692 S.W.2d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (original jurisdiction review framework for mandamus)
- Ex parte Alexander, 685 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (exclusive Article 11.07 habeas corpus relief)
- Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (jurisdictional boundaries for mandamus against lower courts)
- In re Jackson, 238 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007) (post-conviction relief procedures and mandamus interplay)
- In re State ex rel. Villalobos, 218 S.W.3d 837 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2007) (Article 11.07 context and mandamus authority)
- In re Trevino, 79 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002) (mandamus jurisdiction when habeas context present)
- In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] 2001) (intervention limits in Article 11.07 actions)