Kossie, Lexter Kennon ( 2015 )

lo,9i$-3&
Lexter Kennon Kossie#700661
William McConnell Unit
3001 South Emily Drive
Beeville, Texas 78102
RECEIVED IN
February 27, 2015 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
MR 04 2015
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
P.O. BOX 12308, Capital Station
Austin, Texas 78711
RE: FILING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ACCOMPANYING WRIT
OF MANDAMUS
Dear Clerk:
Please find enclosed for filing and bringing to
the Court's attention the original Motion For Leave To
File Accompanying Original Petition For Writ of Mandamus
as soon as your time will permit.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lext'er Kennon Kossie
Pro se Movant/Relator
cc: File
cc: 14th Court of Appeals,Respondent
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
LEXTER KENNON KOSSIE, Relator,
CASE NO.14-94-01171-CR
THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondent.;
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ACCOMPANYING ORIGINAL
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH THIS COURT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
Comes now, LEXTER KENNON KOSSIE, relator, pro se,
herein, and files this petition under the authority of Tex.
Const, art.; I, §§ 13 and 27 requesting this Court to issue
a writ of mandamus against respondent compelling respondent
to rule on relator's Motion To Recall Mandate and will show
unto the Court the following:
I.
This Court have authority to issue writs of mandamus
in criminal law matters pursuant to Tex. Const, art. V, § 5
and Tex. Code Crim. Proc.art. 4.04, § 1.
II.
Relator, LEXTER KENNON KOSSIE, is a prisoner of the
State of Texas in the custody of the Texas Department of Crim
inal Justice Correctional Institutions Division. Relator is
currently confined at the William McConnell Unit addressed:
3001 South Emily Drive; Beeville, Texas 78102.
Respondent, THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, is the
court of appeals whereas relator's direct appeal was filed.
The address of the principal office of respondent is : 301
Fannin, Suite; Houston, Texas 77002.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of this Court is to review whether
relator has demonstrated that the act sought to be compelled
is ministerial. See State ex rel. Healey v. McMeans, 884 S.jW.]
2d 772 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), citing Braxton v. Dunn, 803 S.W.
2d 318, 320 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).
.IV-!
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On or about the 20th day of October, 2014, relator
file his Motion To Recall Mandate with the 14th court of
appeals in which the court has wholly refused to rule on said
motion. On or about the 9th day of February, 2015, relator
wrote the court inquiring about the status of said motion in
which the court has also refused to respond to.
V.
ARGUMENTS
Relator contends that the respondent is required to
rule on motions p resented to the court in a reasonable time.
When a motion is properly filed and pending before a court,
the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion
is a ministerial act, and mandamus may issue to compel the
court to act. See In re Ramirez, 994 S.jW.j 2d 682, 683 (Tex.App.-
San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); see also Saftey-Kleen Corp
V. Garcia, 945 S.;W.2d 268, 269) Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, orig.
proceeding). If a motion has been properly filed and brought to
the attention of the court, this court may direct the court to
consider and rule upon the motion: however, this court may not
tell the court what ruling it should make. See Ramirez, 994
S.;W.;2d at 684. Relator contends that the act sought to be com
pelled is ministerial, as opposed to discretionary and relator
do not have an adequate remedy at law therefore he has met the
two prerequisites,that must be met before a writ of mandamus
will issue. See Ordunez v. Bean, 579 S.W.2d 911. 913 (Tex.Crim.
App. 1979).
(2)
WHEREFORE, PREMISES ARE CONSIDERED, Relator
prays this Court will grant him leave to file the accom
panying original petition for a writ of mandamus thereafter,
issue a writ of mandamus compelling respondent to rule on
relator's pending motion to recall mandate in re Cause No.
679887 and appeal case no. 14-94-01171-Cr.
INMATE'S DECLARATION
I, LEXTER KENNON KOSSIE#700661, being presently
incarcerated at the McConnell Unit in Beeville, Texas, de
clare pursuant to Tex. Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 132.001)a),
132.002, and 132.003 that, according to my belief, the
allegations made in this motion are true and correct.
SIGNED ON THISj^7_day of