Shalouei, Mathew Payam
WR-83,501-01
| Tex. App. | Jun 25, 2015Background
- Relator Mathew Payam Shalouei filed a pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County (cause no. 1437307) challenging custody-related issues; the 263rd District Judge Jim Wallace denied issuance of the writ without holding a hearing or ruling on the merits.
- Relator argues the trial court had a ministerial duty to issue the writ, set it for return, let it be served, and hear the merits under Texas habeas statutes and the Texas Constitution.
- The trial-court denial prevented Relator from obtaining an appeal because the court never reached the merits; appeal lies only from a merits ruling.
- Relator attempted to present the same habeas application to other district courts (“shop around”); some courts denied issuance as well and others declined to participate.
- Relator contends he has no adequate remedy at law (no appeal) and seeks mandamus from the Court of Criminal Appeals to compel issuance and a merits ruling; he also requests temporary relief to stay an imminent trial date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shalouei) | Defendant's Argument (Judge Wallace) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial judge had a ministerial duty to issue a habeas writ and set it for return | Trial judge had a mandatory, non‑discretionary duty to issue the writ when petition complied with statutory requirements | Denial asserted because claim allegedly not cognizable on pretrial habeas (thus judge declined to issue writ) | Court found trial judge had a duty to issue the writ procedurally and to consider and rule on the application before denying appealability |
| Whether Relator lacks an adequate remedy at law because he cannot appeal when judge refuses to issue a writ | No appeal lies from a refusal to issue a writ when the court never rules on merits; thus mandamus is the only effective remedy | Implicitly that the judge could refuse issuance and that other remedies (presenting to another judge) were available | Court recognized absence of appellate remedy when merits not reached, making mandamus appropriate in some circumstances |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel the trial court to act (issue writ / rule on merits) | Mandamus is proper where judge refuses to issue or to rule and where "shopping" for another judge is impracticable or inadequate | State/respondent viewed claim as non‑cognizable pretrial and denied issuance; urged limitations on mandamus relief | Court cited precedent allowing mandamus to compel action when trial court refuses to issue or rule and alternative remedies are inadequate |
| Whether temporary relief (stay of trial) should issue pending mandamus | Emergency stay necessary because trial imminent and relief otherwise unavailable | Implicit opposition based on timing and trial schedule | Relator requested emergency temporary relief; Court has authority to grant such relief pending disposition (relator sought stay) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (distinguishes issuance of the writ from ruling on merits; appealability only from merits ruling)
- Ex parte McCullough, 966 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (absence of appeal from refusal to issue writ; remedies include presenting to another judge or seeking mandamus)
- Click v. State, 39 S.W.2d 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 1931) (when statutory requirements are met, issuance of habeas becomes a right and cannot be denied)
- Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (confirming that some remedies include presenting the application to another judge or seeking mandamus)
- Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (absence of an appellate remedy supports mandamus relief)
- Von Kolb v. Koehler, 609 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. App. — El Paso 1980) (mandamus appropriate where trial court fails to act on a habeas application and alternative remedies are inadequate)