### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 075 -CV

In r e St at e of Te xa s

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator State of Te x as filed a petition for writs of manda m u s and prohibition challeng ing the trial court’ s order compelling the State to sur rende r possession of ce rtain evide nce to t he de fe nd ant, re a l pa

rt y in i nte re st T re nt S te wa

rt . We c on dit ion a lly

g ra nt t he wr it o f m and a mus . This orig inal proce eding ar ises from a pr osecution ag ainst Stewart for ag g ravated
r o b b e r y w it h a d e a d ly wea

pon. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 29.03(a) (2) ( West 2003). Stewart pleade d g uilty and was assessed punishment of t wenty -five y ear s’ i mprisonment. The district cour t later de termined that the se n t en ce w as excessive a nd disproportionate a

nd communicated to the parties that it would g rant the defe ndant’s motion for a new tria l as to punishment. The motion for new tria l was g rante d, and the State a ppeale d. Whil e th e d i s t ri ct cour t proce eding s were stay ed pending resolution of the State’s a ppeal to this Court, the district c ourt issued the orde r that is the subject of this petition.

I n a hea ring on matters conc erningStewart’s bond, the district court ora lly order ed the State to return to Stewa rt his driver’ s license, soc i al s ec u ri ty car d, and Ve tera

n’s Aff airs ca rd,Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that th e dis tr ic t c ourt jud g e ha d p re vio us ly

ordered S tew art

to 1 participate in reha

bilitation s ervic es at the Push-Up F oundation, a residential treatment fac ility
. The Foundation’s policies requir e t h at af ter four teen da y s in residenc e, clients must apply for employ ment. The district cour t was thus conce rned that wi thout his original identification documents, Stewar

t could not comply

with the conditions of bond. We note, howeve r, that ac cordingto the Texas Depar tment of Public Safety ’s website, a repla ceme nt driver’ s license c an be obta ined by showing either a v al i d U.S. passport, two
“ se c on da ry” ide nti fy

ingdo c ume nts (s uc h a s an o ri g ina l or c e rt if ie d co py of a U. S. bir

th c e rt if ic a te or an or igina l or ce rtified copy of court order with na me and date of birth), or a seconda ry identifying do c ume nt a

nd tw o p ie c e s of “ su

pp or t ide nti fi c a tio n” (e .g ., sc ho ol r e c or ds , in sura nc e po lic y , v e hic le title, military rec ords, marria g e license or divorce decr ee, voter reg istration c ard, pilot’ s l i cense, conce aled ha

ndg un license, e x pired drive r’s lice nse or identific at io n is s u e d b y a n o th er state , or Texas I nmate I dentification card)
. See http:// www.txdps. s t at e. tx .us (follow “D river L icense FAQ ” hy pe rl ink ). A r e pla c e me nt S oc ia l Se c ur ity c ard c an b e ob ta ine d e ith er by pres e nti nga va lid U. S. passport or by

providing a U.S. birth cer tificate and “other documents” proving identity , such as a n employ ee ide ntification ca rd, school identification card, he alth insur ance ca rd, U.S. milit ary identification ca

rd, or a doption decre e. See http:// www.soc ialsecur ity .g ov/ss5doc. Ar tic le 39 .1 4 p ro vid e s, in p e rt ine nt p art : 2 Upon motion of the defendant showing good cause therefor and upon notice to t he other pa rties, the cour

t in which an action is pendingshall order the State bef

ore or during trial of a criminal action there in pe nding or on trial to produce and per mit the inspecti o n an d copying or photogr aphing by

or on beha lf of the de fenda nt of any desig nated doc uments . . . or tang ible things not privil eg ed, which c onstitut e or contain evide nce material to any matter involved in the a ction and which are in the po sse ssi on , c us tod

y or c on tr ol o f t

he State or

any of its a g e nc ie s. . . . N oth ingin t his Act shall authoriz e the r emoval of suc h evidenc e fr om the possession of the State, and any inspection shall be in the pre sence of a r epre sentative of the State.
Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 39.14 (West 2006). 2 all of which w ere in Stewa rt’s wallet found at the scene of the robber y . The district c ourt asser ted that Ste wa

rt , in or de r t o o bta in emp lo y

ment and he a lthins ur anc e c on sis te nt w iththe te rm s o f h is bo nd , r e qu ir e d h is o ri g ina l id e nti fi c a tio n c ard s. The prosecutor r efuse d to relinquish the orig inal 1 documents on the g rounds that the State co u l d n o t b e ordered to surr ender possession of critica l evidenc e, that the district cour t’s sua sponte orde r wa s not authorized by article 39.14 o f t he code of cr iminal procedur e, an d t h at t h e t ri al co u rt l ac k ed j u ri s d i ct i o n t o co n d u ct an y fu rt h er p ro ce ed i n gs 23

beca use the c ase w as on appe al. I n lieu of the orig inal documents, the State tende red photoc opies of the re qu e ste d it e ms, wh ic h th e pr os e c uto r a rgue d w ou ld b e su ff

ic ie nt t o a llo w St e wa

rt to o bta in employ ment and hea lth insurance. T he State then f iled this petiti on to preve nt the district court fr om
en fo rc i n g i t s o rd er , an d

we gra n t edt h e S t at e’ s re qu es t fo r a nem er gen cy s t ay o f f u rt h er p ro ce ed i n gs in the district court pendingour disposition of this petition.

To obtain relief throug h a writ of m andamus, a relator must establish that (1) no other adequate re medy

at law is ava ilable and ( 2) the a ct he se eks to compel is min i sterial in nature , rathe r than discr etionary
. Dicke ns v. Court of Appeals for Second Supre me J

udicial Dist. of T

ex. , 72 7 S. W.2 d 542 , 5 48 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 87 ). Mand a mus may a lso iss ue if

a jud g e a c ts b e y on d h is statutory authority
. State ex re l. Holmes v. Salinas , 784 S.W .2d 421, 423 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The re lator see king a

writ of prohibition must demonstrate that he ha d no other adequate re medy at law and that he is clea

rly entitled to the re l i ef soug ht. Curry v. W ilson , 853 S.W .2d 40, 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

The State a sse r

ts tha t the district court ac ted beyond its statutory authority by order ing the State to g ive to the defe ndant materia l e vidence in the State’s custody and contr ol. I n response , Stewart argues that beca

use the items w ere not or dere d to be turned ove r pursua nt to a “discove ry order ,” ar ticle 39.14 of the c ode of c riminal proce dure is not applica ble. He a sserts instead that the items in question were subjec t to an order issued pursuant t o the district court’s jurisdiction over bond conditions, a

nd there fore the district court wa s actingwithin its authority
. See Fa rri s v . S tate , 712 S.W .2d 512, 514 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (trial court’s powe r to ac t ends when a ppellate r ecor d4

i s fi l ed i n co u rt o f ap p ea l s , “e x ce p t fo r m at t er s co n ce rn i n g b o n d ” ) ( c i t i n g Duncan v . Evans , 653 S.W .2d 38, 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)).

We d isa g re e , h ow ever , th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s a uth or ity to “ imp os e re a so na

ble conditions on b ai l pending the finality of [the defe ndant’s] conviction,” s ee Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a

rt 44 .0 4( c ) (We st 2 00 6) , a llo ws the tr ia l c ourt to c omp e l th e State to relinquish evidence , above a nd bey ond what the leg islature has pe rmitt ed t h e d ef endant to obtain throug h ordinary discovery proce sses. See id. art. 39.14 (upon de fenda nt’s motion, court shall orde r State to produce and per mit ins pection and c opy ing of cer tain evidenc e in State’s custody and contr ol, but n o t h i ng in act aut horizes removal of such e videnc e from State’s possession ) (empha sis a dded). I f the district court de termined that Stewa rt was having difficulty complying with its conditions of bond, t he cour t had the a uthority to revise those conditions as t o Stewart. But the district court’s sua sponte order in this case re quiring t h e S tate to re linquish evidence to the de fenda nt in a pending case was not
au thorized under any

statute; theref

ore, ma ndamus is proper. See Salinas , 7 8 4 S. W. 2 d a t 4 2 3; State ex re l. Holmes v. D enson , 671 S.W .2d 896, 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

The State a lso asserts that i t has no reme dy at law be cause the code of cr iminal proce dure does not authorize the appe al by the State of a

trial court’ s discovery

order
. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01 ( West 2006). We ex press no opinion as to whethe r the district cour t’s order in this case wa s in fact a “discove ry

order .” Rather , beca

use we have de ter m i ned that the district court ac ted beyond its statutory authority , we c onditionally g rant the writ of mandamus and direc t the trial court to vac ate its order requiringthe S t at e t o gi v e t o Stewart his orig inal driver’ s5

license, soc ial secur ity

car d, and Veter an’s Affa irs car d. The writ will issue only if the court doe s not comply

with this opi nion. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8.

__________________________________________ Diane H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Filed: F ebrua

ry 22, 2008