in Re Ernest Martin ( 2013 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-13-00423-CR
_________________
IN RE ERNEST MARTIN
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Ernest Martin filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court
to compel the trial court to address his motion to compel his defense attorney at
trial to produce his defense file for Martin’s use in filing a petition for writ of
habeas corpus with the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2012).
To obtain mandamus relief, Martin must show that he has a clear legal right
to the act sought to be compelled. See Banales v. Court of Appeals for the
Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 93 S.W.3d 33, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Generally,
consideration of a properly filed motion is ministerial. See State ex rel. Curry v.
Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). However, Martin has not
1
shown that an active proceeding exists before the convicting court, since the
judgment became final before he filed the motion that is the subject of his petition
for mandamus. Habeas corpus proceedings under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure provide the exclusive post-conviction remedy for Martin’s
complaints. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07.
Relator has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See
State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2001) (To demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus, a relator
must establish that the trial court failed to perform a ministerial duty, and that
relator has no other adequate legal remedy.). Accordingly, we deny relief on the
petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Opinion Delivered October 16, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
2