Case Information
*1 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. AP-76,727
PHILIPPE PADIEU, Relator
v.
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH DISTRICT, Respondent ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS CAUSE NOS. 05-11-00883-CV, 05-11-00884-CV, 05-11-00885-CV, 05-11-00886-CV, 05-11-00887-CV, 05-11-00888-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH DISTRICT, DALLAS Per Curiam.
O P I N I O N
Relator filed an application for a writ of mandamus in this Court after the Fifth Court
of Appeals dismissed his petitions for writs of mandamus filed in that court for want of
jurisdiction.
In re Padieu
, Nos. 05-11-00883 – 00888-CV,
This Court has the power to issue the writ of mandamus in criminal-law matters. Tex.
Const. аrt. V, § 5(c). Texas appellate courts also have authority to issue a writ of mandamus
against a judge of a district or county court within their geographic jurisdiction. T EX . G OV ’ T
C ODE § 22.221(b)(1). Relator’s petition was directed at a distriсt judge. Due to this
concurrent jurisdiction, relator properly first sought mandamus relief against the district
judge in the аppellate court.
Padilla v. McDaniel
,
This Court does not have jurisdiction to review an appellate court’s decision in its
exercise of original jurisdiction by way of petition for discretionary review, so mandamus is
relаtor’s only remedy at law.
State ex rel Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District
, 34
S.W.3d 924, 926–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (citing
Jacolos v. State
,
The traditional two-prong test for mandamus relief requires that a relator show he has
no adequatе remedy at law and that the action he seeks to compel is ministerial, rather than
one involving judiciаl discretion.
Bowen v. Carnes
,
At the Fifth Court of Appeals, relator sought issuance of the writ to compel a district
judge to “entertain and hear the Relator’s timely filed Motion for the Use of the Existing
Trial Record on A Loan Basis.” The court of appeals сoncluded that it did not have
jurisdiction because the motions that relator wanted the district judge to addrеss sought a trial
record to aid in the preparation of a habeas corpus applicаtion under Article 11.07 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. “It is well established that only the Court of Criminal Appeals
possesses the authority to grant relief in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding where
there is a final felony conviction.”
Ex parte Alexander
,
mandamus petition to compel a district judge to respond to a pending applicаtion for writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction).
This case, however, presents a different situаtion. It appears from the record before
us that, at the time it was filed, relator’s mandamus actiоn did not concern a pending habeas
corpus application. Although the records he seеks may be intended for preparation of an
eventual habeas corpus application, the issue here is simply whether the trial judge has a duty
to act upon his pending motion. This situation is similar to that pоsed by the prisoner seeking
post-conviction DNA testing under authority of Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal
Prоcedure. That the fruit of the proceeding is intended for eventual Article 11.07 litigation
does not preсlude a court of appeals from exercising its jurisdiction over district judges in
the midst of a Chapter 64 action.
In re Jackson
,
Similarly, we perceive no reason why our exclusive Article 11.07 jurisdiction divests an appellate court of jurisdiction to decide the merits of a mandamus petition alleging that a district judge is not ruling on a mоtion when the relator has no Article 11.07 application pending.
The court of appeals was not wrong to tread lightly where an Article 11.07 habeas corpus application may be concеrned, and it was not alone in its determination that it lacked jurisdiction. See In re Trevino , 79 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding). However, when there is no pending application for habeas corpus filed under Article 11.07 of thе Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellate court is not without *5 jurisdiction to rule on mandamus pеtitions relating to a motion requesting access to material that could be used in a future habeas аpplication.
Accordingly, we conditionally grant mandamus and direct the Fifth Court of Appeals to rescind its decision dismissing relator’s petitions for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction and to consider the merits of the issues raised. This writ of mandamus will issue only if the court of appeals does not comply within thirty days of the date of this opinion. Delivered: January 9, 2013
Publish