516 S.W.3d 488
Tex. Crim. App.2017Background
- Ellen Wilson was charged with misdemeanor DWI in Lubbock County; her attorney sought permission to give Wilson redacted copies of discovery materials produced by the State under the Michael Morton Act (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14).
- Article 39.14(f) allows defense counsel to permit the defendant to view discovery but expressly bars counsel from allowing the defendant to have copies (except the defendant’s own statement).
- County Court at Law No. 1 (Judge Hocker) granted the defense motion to provide copies but stayed the order pending the State’s mandamus application.
- The State filed an original mandamus petition directly in the Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing (based on In re Meyer) that courts of appeals lack mandamus jurisdiction over county courts at law; respondent argued the petition should have been filed in the court of appeals under Padilla v. McDaniel.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held the courts of appeals do not have mandamus jurisdiction over statutory county courts (including county courts at law), so the State properly filed in this Court, and on the merits the trial court lacked authority to permit counsel to give the defendant copies under Art. 39.14(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the courts of appeals have concurrent original mandamus jurisdiction over county courts at law | Relator (State) argued courts of appeals lack jurisdiction over statutorily created county courts at law, so filing in CCA was proper | Respondent argued Padilla required initial filing in court of appeals because appeals courts generally have concurrent jurisdiction | Held: Courts of appeals do not have mandamus jurisdiction over statutory county courts; original filing in CCA was proper. |
| Proper construction of Gov’t Code §22.221(b) and §21.009 definitions | State urged plain statutory definitions restrict §22.221(b) to constitutional county courts | Respondent urged legislative history and purpose support broader mandamus authority including county courts at law | Held: Apply plain text and definitions in §21.009; §22.221(b) covers constitutional county courts only. |
| Whether Art. 39.14(f) permits a trial court to order defense counsel to provide copies of discovery to a represented defendant | Relator: Art. 39.14(f) unambiguously prohibits counsel from allowing a represented defendant to have copies; mandamus warranted | Respondent: Trial court can exercise discretion under Art. 39.14(e) (good cause) or otherwise to allow copies to ensure fair representation | Held: Art. 39.14(f) is absolute as to represented defendants; trial court lacked authority to permit counsel to give copies. Mandamus conditionally granted. |
| Adequacy of other remedies and ministerial/judicial nature for mandamus | Relator: No adequate appellate remedy; statute is clear so act is ministerial | Respondent: Discovery disputes are judicial matters and court had discretion; mandamus inappropriate | Held: No adequate legal remedy; statute is definite and unambiguous as applied — ministerial rule applies; mandamus appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (prescribes initial mandamus filing in court of appeals when courts have concurrent jurisdiction)
- In re Meyer, 482 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016) (court of appeals held it lacks mandamus jurisdiction over statutory county courts)
- Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (plain statutory text governs unless absurdity requires broader inquiry)
- State ex rel. Young v. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Dist., 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (mandamus prerequisites: no adequate remedy at law and clear right to relief)
- State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial court may be compelled by mandamus to follow clear statutory dictates)