Tennison, Jeremie Glen, WR-85,771-01

Background

Relator Jeremie Glen Tennison is indicted for evading arrest (Tex. Penal Code § 38.04). After appointed counsel, Tennison signed a waiver of jury trial; he later retained new counsel and moved to withdraw the waiver 36 days before the scheduled bench trial.
New counsel also filed a motion for a pretrial hearing on withdrawal; the trial judge declined to hold the hearing before the day of the bench trial and indicated he would take up the matter at trial.
Relator alleges the late consideration is effectively engineered to create grounds to deny withdrawal (e.g., witness inconvenience, docket disruption) and therefore denies him the constitutional right to a jury.
Relator argues the original waiver was the product of ineffective assistance / inadequate investigation by prior counsel (no subpoenas, minimal investigation into DPS conduct, witness interviews, video, or use-of-force inquiry).
Counsel sought emergency mandamus relief from the Twelfth Court of Appeals to compel the trial judge to hold a timely hearing and permit withdrawal; the court of appeals refused the writ and denied a stay. Relator petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for mandamus relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether the trial court’s refusal to hold a pretrial hearing on the motion to withdraw jury-waiver violated Tennison’s constitutional rights	Tennison: denial of a timely hearing deprived him of the right to an impartial jury and due process; the right to a jury requires meaningful pretrial consideration of withdrawal	Trial judge (implicit): court may manage docket and is not required to hold pretrial hearings under §28.01; can address motions at trial	Relator seeks mandamus; COA refused relief; matter is presented to Court of Criminal Appeals (no final ruling in petition)
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by waiting until trial to consider withdrawal (creating artificial prejudice)	Tennison: placing the hearing at trial is an arbitrary attempt to manufacture prejudice (witness inconvenience, delay) to justify denial	Court would likely argue calendar/docket control and that withdrawal may be denied if it prejudices the State or disrupts court business	Relator contends abuse of discretion warranting mandamus; relief requested to compel earlier hearing and allow withdrawal
3. Whether Tennison’s earlier waiver was involuntary or the product of ineffective assistance of counsel	Tennison: prior counsel failed to investigate (no subpoenas, no DPS internal inquiry), so waiver was uninformed and not knowing/intelligent	State/bench (implicit): waiver on the record is presumptively valid absent proof of bad faith or prejudice	Relator urges that inadequate counsel/support undermines the waiver and supports withdrawal; court of appeals declined emergency relief
4. Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel the trial court to permit withdrawal and set a jury trial	Tennison: mandamus proper because the duty is ministerial under Marquez/Hobbs and there is no adequate remedy by appeal; refusal here is effectively final	Respondent: mandamus is extraordinary; trial court discretion and interlocutory remedies may be adequate	Relator argues mandamus is warranted; petition pending before Court of Criminal Appeals (no issued mandamus in this record)

Key Cases Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (jury must find every element that increases punishment beyond statutory maximum)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies to criminal guilt)
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (jury must determine factual questions that increase defendant’s legal exposure)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (constitutional error where reasonable-doubt instruction violation renders verdict invalid)
Marquez v. State, 921 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (defendant may withdraw jury-waiver if timely, in good faith, and without adverse consequences)
Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standards for withdrawal of jury-waiver and trial court’s discretion)
Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (§28.01 pretrial-hearing statute is permissive, not mandatory)
In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus appropriate to compel ministerial acts in criminal cases)
Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (mandamus relief principles)
Joachim v. Chambers, 815 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. 1991) (procedural context for seeking mandamus when court of appeals wrongfully denies relief)