1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00219-CR 

__________________

IN RE JA’REN L. BATTLES 

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F23-0217

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator Ja’Ren L. 

Battles asks this Court to compel the trial court to hold an examining 

trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 16.01 (“The accused in any 

felony case shall have the right to an examining trial before indictment 

in the county having jurisdiction of the offense[.]”). Because Battles failed 

to include an appendix to his petition containing the records required to 
2

establish his petition has merit, he has not shown that an abuse of 

discretion occurred. Accordingly, the petition is denied.1

In a criminal case, to establish a right to mandamus relief a relator 

must show that no adequate remedy at law exists to redress the alleged 

harm and that he is seeking to compel a ministerial act, one that doesn’t 

involve a discretionary or judicial decision. See In re State ex rel. Young 

v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 

210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Even though Battles claims 

the trial court didn’t provide him with an examining trial, he doesn’t 

explain that he ever filed a motion with the trial court in which he raised 

that request. “If a party properly files a motion with the trial court in a 

criminal case, the court has a ministerial duty to rule on the motion 

within a reasonable time after the motion has been submitted to the court 

for a ruling or after the party has requested a ruling.” In re Gomez, 602 

S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). 

1Relator failed to certify that he served a copy of the mandamus 

petition on the Respondent and the Real Party in Interest. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 9.5. Relying on Rule 2, however, we look past that deficiency to 

reach an expeditious result. See id. 2.
3

To prevail on a petition for mandamus, a relator must show that he 

filed a motion in the trial court requesting the relief addressed in the 

petition for mandamus. The relator must also show that he brought his 

motion to the trial court’s attention for the purpose of having the trial 

court rule on his motion, and he must demonstrate the trial court failed 

to rule on his motion within a reasonable time. Id. 

When filing a petition in the court of appeals, the appendix the 

relator must file with his petition is required to contain a sworn or 

certified copy of the trial court’s order that serves as the basis of the 

relator’s complaint, along with the other documents in the record that are 

relevant to the order the relator is complaining about in his petition. See 

Tex. R. App P. 52.3(k)(1). The petition must be accompanied by a 

certification, signed by the relator, which states the relator has reviewed 

the petition and every factual statement in the petition is supported by

competent evidence in the appendix or the record. See id. 52.3(j). Battles’

petition is not accompanied by an appendix or a certification that 

complies with Rule 52.3(k)(1). 
4

Battles claims he has been detained in custody without an 

examining trial since he was arrested on March 18, 2023. Yet Battles 

fails to mention whether he has been indicted. The petition for 

mandamus is silent about whether Battles is represented by counsel in 

the trial court. Importantly and as already mentioned, Battles’ petition 

doesn’t show that he filed a motion in the trial court asking the trial court 

to conduct an examining trial. Instead, Battles only says that he’s not 

had one. 

In Battles’ prayer, Battles cites section 132.001 of the Civil Practice 

and Remedies Code and declares the information in his petition “is true 

and correct.” Even though section 132.001 allows Battles to file a petition 

using an unsworn declaration in lieu of an affidavit, Battles’ unsworn 

declaration doesn’t comply with section 132.001, as he didn’t include his 

date of birth, and he also didn’t include this statement: “I declare under 

penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” See Tex. Civ. 

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001(e).
5

For all these reasons, Battles’ petition fails to establish that he is 

entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny his petition seeking 

the writ. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). 

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 18, 2023

Opinion Delivered July 19, 2023

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.