Tisdale, Chad Wayne, WR-83,512-02

Background

Chad Tisdale filed a post-conviction misdemeanor habeas petition in Bastrop County alleging his plea was involuntary. The county court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal to the Third Court of Appeals was dismissed for lack of a merits ruling; discretionary review was later refused by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Tisdale refiled in the 335th Judicial District; the district court dismissed the petition before a scheduled hearing and did not timely notify him. A later request to the Bastrop County Court at Law to act was met with no written ruling.
Tisdale sought mandamus from the Third Court of Appeals to compel a trial court to issue a writ of habeas corpus; that petition was denied. He then petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals (this filing) seeking either mandamus compelling issuance of the habeas writ by a Bastrop trial court or that the Court exercise original habeas jurisdiction.
Tisdale’s counsel argues (1) trial courts have a nondiscretionary duty to issue a writ unless the petition is manifestly without merit, (2) voluntariness of a plea requires a fact‑intensive totality‑of‑the‑circumstances inquiry (usually needing a hearing), (3) Bastrop trial courts have jurisdiction, and (4) there is no adequate remedy at law because further filings in Bastrop would be futile and would unreasonably delay a prompt hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to issue writ (ministerial duty)	Trial court must issue habeas writ on proper petition unless defect is manifest	Trial courts may refuse petitions deemed frivolous or without merit	Court requires showing duty is ministerial; petitioner argues refusal must be limited to petitions manifestly without merit
What constitutes “manifest” defect	"Manifest" means obvious on face of petition or attached docs; heavy burden to refuse without hearing	Rely on precedent (e.g., Mitschke) to justify dismissal without hearing where claim lacks merit	Determination of manifestness is narrow; involuntary‑plea claims usually need fact inquiry and thus not manifestly invalid
Voluntariness standard	Voluntariness determined by totality of circumstances; often requires hearing or fact findings	State may argue records can show plea valid without hearing in some cases	Totality‑of‑circumstances is fact‑intensive; courts cannot reliably conclude petition is manifestly without merit without hearing/record findings
Jurisdiction of trial courts	County Court at Law and District Court have concurrent jurisdiction over misdemeanor habeas	Trial courts dismissed claiming lack of jurisdiction	Statute and precedent support concurrent jurisdiction; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was contested
Adequate remedy at law / vehicle for relief	Further filings in Bastrop are futile; mandamus or original habeas to CCA is appropriate	Appellate court denied mandamus citing Mitschke; may prefer exhaustion/other procedures	Petitioner argues no adequate remedy; Court of Appeals denied mandamus but CCA can grant relief via mandamus or original habeas

Key Cases Cited

Click v. State, 39 S.W.2d 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 1931) (recognizing ministerial duty to issue writ under statute)
Griffin v. State, 703 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (totality‑of‑circumstances standard for voluntariness)
Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (merits ruling on record may be appropriate in some habeas cases)
Ex parte Johnson, 876 S.W.2d 340 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (Court exercised original habeas to compel trial court to address merits)
Mitschke v. State, 129 S.W.3d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (used by appellate court to deny mandamus; distinguishes certain plea‑admonishment claims)
Ex parte Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (habeas cognizable for claims challenging plea)
Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (county courts at law possess habeas jurisdiction in misdemeanor cases)
Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (discussing adequacy of alternative remedies)
In re Piper, 105 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003) (orig. proceeding) (procedural exhaustion and interplay of habeas/mandamus remedies)
Ex parte Drake, 212 S.W.3d 822 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (habeas considerations and appellate review)
Ex parte Wolf, 296 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (examples of legal disabilities treated as restraint for habeas)
State v. Collazo, 264 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (driver/peace‑officer license denial as restraint for habeas)