Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted and Opinion filed 

March 24, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00128-CR

IN RE DANIEL LEGER, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 964377

OPINION

On February 7, 2020, relator Daniel Leger filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Frank Aguilar, 

presiding judge of the 228th District Court of Harris County, to enter an order 
2

dismissing the charges against relator after relator was discharged from deferred 

adjudication community supervision. We conditionally grant the petition. 

BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2003, pursuant to a plea agreement, relator pled guilty, to the 

offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. In accordance with the plea 

agreement, the State recommended that the trial court defer a finding of guilt, place 

relator on deferred adjudication for two years, assess a $500.00 fine, order relator to 

pay $470.37 in restitution to the complainant, and impose other conditions of 

community supervision. The trial court accepted relator’s guilty plea and entered an 

order deferring adjudication of guilt in accordance with the terms of the plea 

agreement. 

On December 8, 2005, at the expiration of the full term of community 

supervision, the trial court found that relator had “unsatisfactorily fulfilled the 

conditions of supervision imposed by the court for the full term of the supervision 

period to which he . . . was sentenced.” Nevertheless, the trial court signed the order 

terminating relator’s term of deferred adjudication and discharging relator from 

community supervision. 

On November 1, 2019, relator filed his request for an order of dismissal of the 

underlying criminal charges against him. During a hearing on November 11, 2019, 

relator presented his memorandum of law concerning his request for an order of 

dismissal, and the trial court took the request under advisement. On December 30, 

2019, relator filed a request for a ruling on his motion with the trial court. 
3

After the trial court failed to rule on relator’s motion to dismiss the underlying 

charges, relator filed this original proceeding, asking this court to compel the trial 

court to dismiss the charges against him. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator has 

no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) what the 

relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In 

re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). A 

ministerial act does not involve the use of judicial discretion; instead, a ministerial 

act must be positively commanded and so plainly prescribed under the law as to be 

free from doubt. In re Harris, 491S.W.3d 332, 334–34 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) 

(orig. proceeding). In other words, the relator must have a clear right to the relief 

sought, meaning that the merits of the relief sought are beyond dispute. In re 

McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (internal 

quotations marks and citation omitted). “To show a clear right to the relief sought, 

a relator must show that the facts and circumstances of the case dictate but one 

rational decision under unequivocal, well-settled . . . and clearly controlling legal 

principles.” Id. As to an adequate remedy at law, even if a relator has a remedy at 

law, the relator “can show that no adequate legal remedy exists at law if the remedy 

is so uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient, inappropriate, or 

ineffective as to be deemed inadequate.” Id. 
4

ANALYSIS

Relator contends that the trial court has a ministerial duty to dismiss the 

proceedings and discharge him because he completed his period of deferred 

adjudication. The Texas Code of Criminal procedure provides: 

On expiration of a community supervision period imposed under 

Subsection (a) of this section, if the judge has not proceeded to 

adjudication of guilt, the judge shall dismiss the proceedings against 

the defendant and discharge him.

1

 

Under the mandatory language of this provision, a trial court has a ministerial duty 

to dismiss the underlying criminal charges against a defendant upon completion of 

his term of deferred adjudication community supervision. In re Ruckman, No. 11-

18-00216-CR, 2018 WL 4623806, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication), mand. conditionally granted, In re Ruckman, No. WR90-175-01, 2019 WL 4316836 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 11, 2019) (not designated for 

publication). 

The act of dismissing the underlying criminal charges against relator is 

positively commanded and so plainly prescribed under the law as to be free of doubt. 

See Harris, 491S.W.3d at 334–34. Therefore, the trial court has no discretion but to 

dismiss the underlying criminal charges against relator, and relator has shown that 

the trial court had a ministerial duty to act.

Relator has also shown that he does not have an adequate remedy at law. In 

Ruckman, the relator sought mandamus relief because the trial court did not dismiss 

1 Act of May 31, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 667, § 1, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2250 (emphasis 

added). The language of the current version of this provision is nearly identical. See Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. art. 42A.111(a).
5

the proceedings and failed to discharge the relator after he had successfully 

completed his term of deferred adjudication community supervision. 2018 WL 

4623896, at *1. Although the court of appeals agreed that the relator had shown that 

the acts of dismissing the charges against the relator and discharging the relator were

ministerial, the court denied relator’s petition, holding that the relator had an 

adequate remedy at law because a writ of habeas corpus was available to the relator. 

Id. 

The relator then sought mandamus relief in the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

Ruckman, 2019 WL 4316836 at *1. The court did not address either prong necessary 

for mandamus relief, but instead conditionally granted the relator’s petition and 

ordered the trial court to dismiss the proceedings and discharge the relator. Id. 

Following the Court of Criminal Appeals’ implied holding, relator has shown that 

he does not have an adequate remedy at law. 

Having concluded that relator has established that the trial court had a 

ministerial duty to dismiss the charges against relator upon completion of his 

deferred adjudication community supervision and that he does not have an adequate 

remedy at law, we conditionally grant relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and 

order the trial court to dismiss the charges against relator. The writ will issue only 

if the trial court fails to comply with this opinion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.

Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).