The re cord i ndi cat es that Me drano w as operati ng “ The Othe r Pl ace” for S hannon, 1 w ho was the owner. Relators’ am end ed a pplicat ion for w rit of man dam us requests ot her relief w hich 2 w il l be deni ed. NO. 07-09 -027 2-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A SEPTEM BER30, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN R E THI RTY -F OU R GAM BLIN G D EVIC ES A ND SIX H UN DR ED AND THIRT Y NINE DOLLA RS IN UN IT ED ST AT ES CURRENCY

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ.
OPIN ION
Rel ators, Mi chell e M edrano and Jo hnny Shann on, hav e broug ht a mandamus

1 action against the Honorab le John Board , Ju d ge o f t h e 18 1 Distri ct Court of Randa ll st Cou nty , Tex as, seek ing an order from t his C our

t order ing Ju dg e Board to proceed to tr ial o n t h e u n d e rl yin g fo rf e it u re a c t io n . Ha vin g d e t e r m i n e d t h a tRe la t o rs h a ve n o tsh o wn 2 themse lv es enti tl ed to mandamus reli ef, w e w il l deny the appl ic ati on.The i tems of pers onal proper ty se iz ed are know n as “8- li ner” dev ic es, al leg ed to 3 be gam bling devi ces, gamb ling para phe rnalia, or alte red gamb ling devices. Further referen ce to th e T exas C o d e o f Crimin al Proced ure w ill be b y referen ce 4 to “ Ar ti cl e ___” or

“ art. ____.” This w il l be referred to as the “C our t’ s n oti ce. ” 5 2

Fac tual & P ro cedural Back g ro und
The under ly ing caus e of acti on arose out of t he sei z ure of c ertai n it ems of personal prop erty and an am oun t of cash f rom a n est a b lish me nt kno w n as “Th e Oth er Place” in 3 Ran dal l Cou nty , Tex as, pursuantto the ex ecut ion of a search w ar ra nt on June 24, 2003. Subs eq uentl y , on June 11, 2 004, the S tate, real par ty i n i nterest , fil ed a peti ti on s eeki ng to for feit t he s eiz ed proper

ty pursu ant to the T ex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re . See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 18.18 (V er non Supp. 2008)

. Not ic e of t he s etti ng of a hear ing 4 on th e is s u e o f

t he forfeiture of

the pro perty w as giv en o n Jun e 30 , 200 4. T he n otice prov ide d that the hear ing w oul d occ ur on Jul y 19, 2004. One day prio r to th e orig ina l hea ring dat e, Relat or Medrano f iled a P le a in Abat em entand Motion for Continu ance obj ect ing to the c our

t’ s n oti ce. The c our

t g ra nted the mot io n f o r cont inu ance, resetthe hear ing for a l ater

date , and i ss ued a sec ond not ic e pursuantto arti cle 1 8 .18. See art. 5 18.18. Ata pretr ial hear ing , J udg e Board i ndi cat ed that his i ntentw as to proceed to tr ial on th e “ Cou rt’s notic e.” Su bseq uentl y , t he tr ial co urt hea rd the matter and entered a jud g ment d a te d S e p tember 2, 2004. The tr ial co urt app ears t o hav e i ntended to enter jud g ment i n a n ew

ca use n u m b er , C ause No. 54,8 34- B. How ev er , t he j udg ment w as actu ally ente red in Cause No. 53,7 16-B, the cause initiated bythe rea l party in interest ’s or ig ina l peti ti on. Not ic e of appeal of the “j udg ment entered in Cau se No. 54,8 34- B” w asT he real p ar ty i n i nt eres t ha d ta k en a v ol un ta r y n on - s ui t i n th e or i g i na l c ause 6 number on A ug ust5, 2004. The re al par

ty in int erest sta tes that, alt houg h thes e document s w ere fil ed s tamped 7 Nov ember 5, 20 07, t hey w er e ac tual ly

fil ed w it h the co urt dur ing the hear ing of Oct ober 30, 2007. Ju dg e Poff had been ass ig ned t o hear the moti on to recus e. 8 3 g iv en on Nov ember

11, 2004. This Cou rt dis mis sed the appeal for w ant o f jur is dicti on, a s ther e w a s n o j u d g me n ta c t u a l l y e n t e r e d i n C a u s e N o . 5 4 , 8 3 4
- B

. S e e I n re T h i rty -four 6 Gambl ing D evice s, N o. 07 -0 4- 0548- CV , 200 6 Tex .App. LEX IS 7 75, a t * 8 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo Jan. 30, 2006, no pet .) ( memo. op. ). The C our t’ s mand ate w as is sued Febr uar y 5, 2006.
T he rea l party in interestrequested a trial setting by letter add ressed to Jud ge Board o n No vem b e r 29 , 2 0 0 6 , in Ca u se No . 5 4 ,8 3 4 -B . B y let te r da te d Au gus t 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 , J u d ge Board adv is ed al l par

ti es th a t the matt er

w as setfor fin al hear ing on O cto ber 30, 2007. Rel ator Shann o n fil ed a moti on for cont inu ance on Oc tober 24, 2007. On Oct ober 30, 2007, Shannon filed anot her moti on for cont inu ance, su ppor ted b y the aff ida v itof Shannon, a mot ion to dis mis s for lack of prose cut ion , and a ple a to the jur is dicti on and ple a in bar. The mot ion for co ntinu ance was grante d on Octob er 30, 2 007 , and Judge Boa rd

7 requeste d brief ing on the o the r motio ns. On Jan uary 2 , 2 0 0 8 , r e al party i n inte rest re q uest ed a final hear ing

. On Janua ry 7, 2008, Judg e Board deni ed Sha nnon’ s p lea to the ju ris d ict io n an d pl e a in ba r. On Ja n u a ry 1 6 , 20 0 8 , Rel a to rs f ile d a m o ti o n to rec u se Ju d ge Board. On M ay

29, 2008, Rel ators fil ed a moti on to dis mis s for failu re to immedi atel y se t the motion to re cus e. On J une 3, 2008, Ju dg e Br y an Poff denied the moti on to recus e. 84

Ag ain , on June 3, 2008, the real party in interestf il ed a re q uestthat the m atter be s et for tr ial

. Rel ators fil ed anot her moti on to di smi ss for fai lure to prose cute on J une 16, 2009. Judg e Board s et a hear ing on the motion to dis mis s for Ju ly 21, 2009. On Jul y

29, 2009, Judg e Board deni ed th e moti on to dismi ss . Pr ior to Judg e Board’ s rul ing on the motion to dis mis s, Rel ators f il ed a moti on to exc lud e all eg ing that the searc h w ar ra nt gi v ing r is e to the c ase shoul d be ex cl uded fro m ev ide nce. The mot ion to ex cl ude w as sc hedul ed for hear ing on O cto ber

22, 2009. Pr ior

to that hear ing , R ela tors f il ed their ori g ina l appl ic ati on for mandamus on A ug ust17, 2009. The real par ty i n i nterestfil ed i ts re spons e to the appl ic ati on for mandamus on Aug ust 31, 2009. Rel ators filed an amended appl ic ati on for ma nda mu s on Se pte mb er 1, 200 9 and a respon se to th e real pa rty in interest’s respo nse on Sep tember

9, 2009.
Standa rd of Rev iew
Cou rt s o f appeals hav e appel lat e jur is dicti on as s peci fied i n ar ti cl e V, se cti on 6, of the Tex as Con sti tuti on, t og ether w it h s uch other

or ig ina l and app ell ate j ur is dicti on as may be presc ri bed by

l aw . T EX . C ON ST . ar

t. V, § 6. C our

ts of appeal s h av e j ur is dic ti on to i ss ue w ri ts of mandamus. T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 22.221( b) (1 ) (V er non 200 4)
Ma ndamus is a l eg al re medy , W est er man v . M ims , 111 Tex . 29, 227 S.W . 178 , 181 (1 921) , ev en thoug h equi tabl e pri nci ple s a ppl y . In re Int ’l Profit A ss ocs ., Inc ., 274 S. W .3d 672 , 676 (Tex. 200 9). A w rit of man dam us is an extraordina ry reme dy tha t w ill issue on ly to correct a clea r abuse of d iscretion or the violation of a duty impose d by l aw, w hen there is no oth er a dequa te reme dy by law. I n re CS X Corp., 124 S .W .3d 1 49, 1 51 (Te x . 200 3).F urther referenc e to the Tex as Rul es of Ci v il Procedu re sh all be b y referenc e to 9 “R ule ___. ” 5 Rel a to rs se e ki ng i ss uance of a w ri t of mandamus bas ed on the v iol ati on of a l eg al duty must sh o w: ( 1 ) a l eg al duty to per form a no n- dis creti onar y ac t; (2 ) a demand for per formance; and (3 ) a refusal to act. O’ Con nor v . Fi rs t Cou rtof Appeal s, 837 S. W .2d 9 4, 97 ( Tex . 199 2) . Funda mental req uirements of due pro ces s mand ate a n oppor tuni ty to be heard. Creel v. Dis t. Att’ y for M edi na C ounty , 818 S.W .2d 4 5, 46 ( Tex . 199 1)

. Req uir ing a di str ic t c our

t t o proceed to tr ial on a matte r is su ppor tabl e b y a mandamus ac ti on. Kissam v . W illiamson , 545 S.W .2d 265 , 267 (Te x .Civ .Ap p.– T y ler 197 6, orig . procee ding).
Ana ly sis
Rel ators c ontend that, w hen Judg e Board deni ed thei r moti on to di smi ss , he made a dec is ion to “mai ntai n the c a se on t he doc ket ” and, therefore, w as re q uired to i ss ue a pretrial orde r assig ning a trial date. R e la t o rs c it e the Court to T exas Rule of Civ il Procedu re 165a( 1) as auth or ity for t his proposi tio n . S e e T EX . R. C IV . P. 165 a(1). Rule 9 165a( 1) st ates , i n per

ti nent par

t,
1. F ailu re t o app ear. A cas e may be d is mis sed for w ant o f pros ecut ion on failu re of any par

ty seek ing aff ir mati v e reli ef to appea r for any hear ing or

tr ial of w hic h the pa rty

had noti ce . . . . If the c our t det er mines to maint ain the cas e on the d ock et, itsh all render a pretr ial order

as si g nin g a t ria l d a te for the c ase . . . . Id.6

The record before thi s Cour t reflec ts thatthe par

ty se eki ng aff ir mati v e reli ef, the real par ty in interest , has appeared at eve ry setti ng for w hic h the tr ial co urt has i ss ued not ic e. Mo re ov er , J u d g e B o a rd d i d n o ts e tt h i s m a t t e r fo r c o n s i d e ra t i o n o n a d i s mi s s a l d o ck et, ra ther , t he record aff ir mati v ely reflect s that Rel ators are basi ng thei r demand on the h ear ing of thei r moti on to di smi ss. T h e re fore, w e find thei r re li ance upon R ule 165a( 1) to be misp laced . See Ale x and er v . L y nda ’s Boutique, 134 S.W .3d 845 , 850 -51 (Te x . 200 4). Acc ordin g ly , R ela tors h av e notsh ow n tha t J udg e Board fail ed i n a mi nis ter ial duty pursuant to t he R ule

. How ev er , t his does not end our inq uir y . Al ter nati v ely , Rea lt ors mai ntai n t hat t he tr ial cour t “ faile d to caus e ei ther a he ar ing to be had w it hin tw enty day s a s mand ated by the procedu re s o f arti cl e 18. 18 or the Stat e fail ed to create and c ause to be ente re d a Judgm enton the A rt . 18. 18 Sh ow Cause Hearing that w as ha d pu rsuan t to the notice is sued by Ma g is trate Board on J uly 26, 2004." See art. 18.18. F irst, ar ti cl e 18. 18 does not mandate that a hear ing be h eld w it hin 20 d ay s. Id. Ar ti cl e 18. 18( e) does di re ct that a perso n inte rested in the prop erty at issue (here, “Th irty -Four Gam bli n g De v ices and Six Hun dr ed a nd Thi rty

N ine D oll ars i n U nit ed St ates C ur re ncy ”) appear before the 2 0 day th foll o w i n g i s s u a n c e o f t h e a rt i c l e 1 8

. 1 8 ( b ) n o t i c e o r r i s k fo r fe i t u r e o f a n y i n t e r e s ti n tha t proper ty . See art. 18.18(e ). F oll ow ing appearance, the tr ial co urt mus t c onduc t a hear ing on th e i ss ue and deter mine the n ature of the proper ty and t he person’ s i nteresttherein . I d. At that hear ing , t he person int er est ed i n the proper ty m ustprov e bya preponderance of the ev ide nce that the proper ty i s n ot s ubj ectto dis posi ti on pursuantto arti cl e 18. 18 and that he is entitled to posse ssion. Id. At the con clusion o f tha t hea ring, the ma gistrate shall dispose7

of the pro p e rt y o r proceed s i n ac cordance w it h ar ti cl e 18. 18( a)

. See ar

t. 18.18( a)

. The re cord reflect s that a hear ing w as sc hedul ed pursuant to the arti cl e and t hat R ela tor M oreno f il e d a m o t io n t o co n t in u e t h e o ri gi n a l h e a ri n g. B e c a u s e Re la t o rs h a ve t h e b u rd e n t o p ro ve ent itlem entto the prope rty , any motio n to dism iss fo r lack of p rosecu tion doe s n ot “clearly cont ain ,” by operati on of l aw or other w is e, a re q uest that the Ma g is trate setthe matter for tr ial

. O’ Con nor , 837 S.W .2d a t 97. Judg e Board hel d the req uired hear ing and, at the con clu sion, itappears h e attempt ed to ente r a j udg ment, how ev er , due to the c onfusio n as to the c ause number , t he judgme nt w as no t ent ered in the surviv ing case. Of g reate r import is the state of the reco rd re ga rd in g t h e a c t io n s o f Re la t o rs . T h e re c o rd re f le c t s t h a t Re la t o rs h a ve f il e d a t le a s ttwo moti ons for c onti nuanc e, on e before the i nit ial hear ing and one after thi s C our

t’ s mand ate is sued. I n additi on, Rel ators hav e f il ed three other dil ator y moti ons, i ncl udi ng a mot ion to re cus e Judg e Board. Ba sed upon t he fail ure of Re lat ors t o req uestJu dg e Board to setthe matter for fin al hear ing before or after h e r u led upon thei r moti on to di smi ss for w ant o f prose cution , w e cann ot say Relato rs ha v e ever m ade a d em and for t he Judge to perform his leg al duty

to setthe matter

for t ri al. Se e i d. Acc ordin g ly , w e c annot g ra nt t he
m a n d a m u s b a s e d u p o n Re la t o rs ’ a lt e rn a t e t h e o ry. Ad dit ion all y , t he re co rd b e fore t his C our t reflect s t hat a t l easttw o req uest s for set ti ng hav e been made by the re al par

ty i n i nterest and t hat t hose re q uest s h av e now been outs tandi ng for more tha n a yea r. At the ti me of each re q uest , R ela tors h av e respon ded
w it h ei ther

a mot ion for c onti nuanc e or othe r dil ator

y pl eadi ng . Rel ators’ cours e of ac ti on lea ds to an i nesc apabl e c oncl usi on th at R ela tors d id not t ru ly des ire a t ri al. It is of no l eg al8

significan ce tha t the real p arty in intere st has request ed trial sett ings becau se Relato rs must meet t he burden of show ing thei r enti tl ement to manda mus reli ef based upon t hei r act ion

. See In re Chavez , 62 S. W .3d 225 , 229 (Tex.App .–A ma rill o 20 01, orig . procee ding).
F in a ll y, in t h e a m e n d e d a p p li c a t io n fo r m a n d a m u s , Re la t o rs h a ve re qu e s t e d t h a twe add ress a num ber of othe r issues that relate to the und erly ing cause of action . To supp ort th is p ro posi ti on, R ela tors h av e c it ed th e C our t t o In re C olo nia l Pi pel ine C o., 968 S. W .2d 938, 943 ( Tex . 199 8) . W h ile we h a ve the d is creti onar y auth or ity

to cons ide r thes e oth er is sues , w e hav e deni ed the req uestfor m andamus and, therefore, see no reason to do s o. Con cl usi on Rel ators’ appl ic ati on for mandamus is deni ed.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice