White, Charlie Coleman
WR-8,867-26
| Tex. App. | Feb 26, 2015Background
- Petitioner Joe Earl Thomas Jr., serving a life sentence in the Texas Department of Corrections, was indicted in Victoria County for two counts of burglary of a habitation.
- Detainers based on those indictments were lodged against him, and Thomas repeatedly requested a trial date from the trial court but received no response.
- Thomas sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to set the cases for trial, claiming violation of his Sixth Amendment and Texas Constitution speedy‑trial rights.
- The Texas Supreme Court transferred the original mandamus application to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to decide whether that court has jurisdiction to issue mandamus to compel speedy trials.
- The question depended on a recent amendment to Tex. Const. art. V, § 5 (effective Jan. 1, 1978), which expanded the Court of Criminal Appeals’ power to issue extraordinary writs in criminal matters.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded Thomas had alleged a prima facie speedy‑trial claim and instructed the trial judge to set the cases for trial as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days after this opinion became final; the writ would issue only upon noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Court of Criminal Appeals have jurisdiction to issue mandamus to compel a speedy trial under the amended Tex. Const. art. V, § 5? | Thomas argued the amended provision empowers the Court of Criminal Appeals to issue mandamus in criminal matters to enforce speedy trials. | The prior constitutional language limited the Court to issuing mandamus only to protect its appellate jurisdiction; thus it lacked general mandamus power. | The amendment granted the Court authority to issue extraordinary writs (including mandamus) in criminal matters to compel speedy trials. |
| Did Thomas state a prima facie claim of denial of a speedy trial warranting relief? | Thomas alleged detainers and unresponded requests for trial dates, asserting deprivation of speedy‑trial rights. | Respondent (trial court) had not set trial dates but no record of compliance/noncompliance yet; scheduling must respect court duties. | Court found Thomas alleged sufficient facts to raise a prima facie speedy‑trial claim and ordered trial set within 60 days of finality, subject to orderly court scheduling. |
| May the Court of Criminal Appeals compel dismissal of charges via mandamus? | Thomas sought mandamus to compel disposition; implicit in remedy is possible dismissal if speedy‑trial rights violated. | Cited precedent (Pope v. Ferguson) limiting mandamus to dismissal requests; court should not directly order dismissal. | Court declined to order dismissal; noted Pope remains persuasive and that dismissal by trial court could render the matter moot. |
| What remedy and timeline are appropriate if mandamus jurisdiction exists? | Thomas sought immediate setting of trial; implied relief to obtain prompt trial or dismissal. | Trial court must balance its docket and other duties; remedy should be reasonable and not unduly disrupt other business. | Court ordered respondent to set trials as soon as possible, but in any event within 60 days of finality of this opinion; writ to issue only if respondent fails to comply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967) (recognizes right to speedy trial and applicability where detainers delay disposition)
- Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969) (speedy‑trial protection for defendants held outside the forum where charges are pending)
- Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30 (1970) (addresses speedy‑trial considerations for incarcerated defendants)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (articulates balancing test for speedy‑trial claims)
- Braden v. Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973) (permits habeas to challenge detainers and delays)
- Fariss v. Tipps, 463 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. 1971) (Texas Supreme Court mandamus practice compelling timely probation revocation/proceedings)
- Pope v. Ferguson, 445 S.W.2d 950 (Tex. 1969) (held Supreme Court’s mandamus power did not extend to ordering dismissal of criminal charges)
- Millikin v. Jeffrey, 299 S.W. 393 (Tex. 1927) (interpreting limits on Court of Criminal Appeals’ mandamus authority under prior constitutional language)