See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen gr ant i ng r el i ef , t he c our t m us t han d do w n an opi ni on a s 1 i n a n y o th e r c a s e .”) ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 4 7 .4 (d i s ti n g u i s h i n g o p i n i o n s a n d m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n s ).

T he u nder l y i ng ca use was or i gi nal l y assi gned t o be hea r d byt he Honor abl e Ar t ur o Ci sner os- N el son. 2 Judge N el son r ecused hi m sel fand t he Honor abl e Noe G onz al es, r espond ent her ei n, was t h e r e a ft erapp oi nt ed t o he art hi s case. 

### NUM BER 13-1 0-00 264- CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG
I N R E : T H E S TAT E O F T E XAS
On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus . M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s B en av ide s a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez 1 Rel ator , t he St ate o f Texa s, act ing by and thro u gh Ar m a n d o R . Vi ll alo bos, the Ca m e ro n Co u n ty a n d Di s t ri ct Att o rn e y, f il e d a p e t it io n fo r writ o f m a n d a m u s in t h e a b o ve caus e on Ma y

3, 2010, cont endi ng thatthe tr ial co u rta bused i ts dis creti on i n order ing Vi ll alo bos “t o tes ti fy re g ardin g his tr ial strateg y or disc re ti onar

y f unct ion s as P ro sec utor .” 2 The Co urt req uest ed and re cei v ed a re sp o n se t o the peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus from2

John Al len R ubi o, t he real par ty i n i nterest , and fu rt h e r recei v ed a re ply thereto from the Stat e. As sta ted h erein , we di sag re e w it h rela tor ’s charact er iz ati on of t he under ly ing matte r and, acc ordin g ly , den y

the peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus

.

I

. S TAND ARD OF R EVI EW Ma ndamus re li ef maybe g ra nted if the re lat or shows that: (1 ) the act soug ht to be
c o m p e ll e d is p u re ly m in is t e ri a l; a n d (2 ) t h e re is n o a d e qu a t e re m e d y a tla w. Se e D ele on v. Dist. Clerk, 187 S.W .3d 4 73, 474 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2006) (o ri g . proceed ing ). The rela tor must hav e a “ cl ear

r ig ht” to the reli ef soug ht an d the merit s o f the re li ef soug ht mus t be “beyond disp ute .” See i d. “ The req uirement of a c lea r leg al ri g ht neces si tates that the l aw pla inl y des cr ibes the d uty

to be per

formed s uch that there i s n o room for t he exerci se of discretion .” Id. II. B A CK GRO UND Rub io w as ind ict e d on four co unts of capi tal murder rela ted t o the ki ll ing and deca pitat ion of

his three children. Rubio plead ed not g uilty by reaso n of insan ity . A jury found him g uil ty

and re ndered a v erdict on the i ss ue of puni shmentthatreq uired th e tr ial
cour t t o s entenc e hi m to d eath. O n appea l, the Tex as Cour t of C ri minal Appea ls rev ersed Rub io’ s j udg m ent o f conv icti on on g ro unds that the t ri al cour t er re d dur ing the g u i l t
- i n n o c e n c e p h a s e o f t h e t r i a l by ad mi tt i n g th e st a t e me n t s of R u b i o ’ s c o mm o n - l a w w i fe and all eg ed acc ompli ce, Ma ri a Camac ho, in the murde rs for w hic h R ubi o was bei ng tr ied

. Rub io v. State , 241 S.W .3d 1 , 2 (Tex . C ri m. App

. 2 0 0 7)

. Fi ndi ng har m, the co urt of
cr imi nal appeal s remanded t he c ase for a new tr ial

. See i

d. O n re ma n d , c o u n s e l fo r R u b i o fi l e d a m o t i o n o n A p r i l 1 9 , 2 0 1 0 , s e e k i n g t o d i s q u a l i fy the C amero n C ounty

and Di str ict Attor ney

and his off ic e from prosec uti ng R ubi o. Pursuant to th e mo tion to disqualif y , coun sel for Ru bio f iled an app lication for a subp oen a to ob tainC ouns e l f o rRu b i o a l s o s o u g h t t o s u b p o e n a V i l l a l o b o s ’ s a s s i s t a n t a n d s e c r e t a r y , Co r i n a Gal v an; 3 howev er , the t r i al cour t r ef used t o i ssue a subp oena f orG al v an. T hi s m at t eri s notat i ssue i n t hi s or i gi nal p ro c e e d i n g .

W e n o te th a t t h e c o u r t o fc r im in a l a p p e a ls h a s a d o p te d th e “ c o m p e llin g n e e d ” t e s t w h ic h g o v e r n s 4 w h e n c o u n s e l fo r t h e d e fe n s e m a y b e c a l l e d to te s ti fy i n a c rim i n a l p ro s e c u ti o n . F lo re s v . S ta te , 155 S. W

. 3d 14 4, 14 8 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 04 ). U nd er t hi s tes t , t he S t ate m us t sh ow t ha t : ( 1) t he re i s no fea s i bl e a l t ern ati ve f orobt ai ni ng a nd p r esent i ng t he i nf or m at i on t o t he j ur y exceptt hr ough def ense counsel ’ s t est i m ony ; and ( 2) th e te s ti m o n y i s e s s e n ti a l , n o t m e re l y re l e v a n t, to th e S ta te ’ s c a s e . See id. I t i s er r ort o or derdef ense c o u n s e l to te s tif y a s a w itn e s s in th e tr ia l u n le s s th e tr ia l c o u r t d e te r m in e s , o u ts id e th e p r e s e n c e o fth e ju r y, th a t th e r e is a c o m p e l l i n g n e e d fo r d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’ s te s ti m o n y u n d e r th i s tw o -p ro n g e d te s t. See id. In di scussi ng t he com pel l i ng need t est , t he cour t of cr i m i nal appea l s ci t ed U llm a n n v . S ta te , 647 A

. 2d 3 24, 334 ( C onn. 199 4) , and par ent het i cal l y not ed t hat t hi s cour t adopt ed t he co m pel l i ng n eed t est t o be app l i ed when e ith e rs id e in a c r im in a l c a s e s e e k s t o c a ll a p r o s e c u to ro rd e f e n s e a tt o r n e y, w h o is o rh a s b e e n p r o f e s s io n a lly i n v o l v e d i n th e c a s e , t o te s ti fy. See id. at 147
- 148 n. 6. 3 the testim ony of

the District and Cou n t y Attorn ey of Came ron Coun ty, Arma ndo R. Vi ll alo bos. The Stat e mov ed to q uash the subpo ena, and the tr ial cour t heard arg uments 3 on th e mo tion at a pre-trial hea ring held on April 29, 201 0. At that hea ring, the trial court
ordered Vi ll alo bos to ap pear to tes ti fy on M ay

4, 2010. This ori g ina l proceed ing ens ued. Base d on it s p re sumpti on abou t t he sco p e o f the anti ci pated tes ti mony , rela tor
c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rth a s o rd e re d V il la lo b o s t o a p p e a r a n d t e s t ify “pr esum abl y to facts that w oul d s uppor t t he Apr il 1 9 , 2 0 1 0 moti on” reg ardin g the dis q ual ific ati on of the Di str ict and C ounty

Att or ney . (E mph asi s a dded)

. Acc ordin g to re lat or , “ there are no matters u pon w hic h the w it ness ca n tes ti fy thatdo not g o to q uest ion s o f the mental impress ion s a nd th oug ht proces ses of the Stat e in prepar ing a cr imi nal cas e for tr ial , al l of
w hich is strictly prote cted by the doct rine of w ork prod uct and/o r prosecut orial discretion ”: The Co urt s peci fical ly

stated that the p ur pose of the te sti mony so ug ht t o be eli ci ted from M r. Vil lal obos woul d be to deter mine w hether his refusal to offer a plea b a rg a i n fo r

l i fe w a s m o t i v a t e d b y a n e x e rc i s e o f p ro s e c u t o ri al dis creti on or

so me personal ani mus . . . . W hil e the Sta te i s s ensi ti v e to [thes e ] c o n c e r n s , g i v e n t h e n a t u re o f t h e c a s e , t h e S t a t e b e l i e v e s t h at t o order an ele cte d off ic ial to sta nd and g iv e tes ti mony thathi s a cti ons w ere not for an imp ermissible reason w hen no evidence of any malfeasa nce o n his part has bee n subm itted by opp osing coun sel, a dan gerous prece den t would be s et.[ ]

4T h i s i s th e s e c o n d o rig i n a l p ro c e e d i n g fil e d i n th i s C o u rt a ris i n g fro m th e p ro s e c u ti o n o f th e re a l p a rty 5 i n i n te re s t h e re i n , J o h n A l l e n R u b i o . S e e In re R u b io , 1 3-0 9-0 04 15 -C R , 20 09 T ex . A pp . LE X I S 58 63 , at * *1-2 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Jul y 27, 200 9, or i g. pr oceedi ng) ( percur i am ) ( m em . o p., n ot d esi gnat ed f or pu bl i c ati on ) ( de ny i ng pe t i t i on for wri t s of m an da m us an d/or proh i bi t i on w he re rel ator s o ug ht t o d i s qu al i fy p ro s e c u ti o n b a s e d u p o n a l l e g e d c o n fli c t o f i n te re s t d u e to th e S ta te ’ s h i rin g re l a to r’s a p p e l l a te c o u n s e l ).
4 T h e S t a t e u rg e s t h a to rd e ri n g V il la lo b o s t o t e s t ify vi o la t e s t h e wo rkp ro d u cta n d e xe c u t ive pr iv il eg es, i mpermi ss ibl y del v es int o matt ers t hat a re protected b y prosec utor ial di sc re ti on, and forc es Vi ll alo bos to act i n a dual role as both adv ocat e and w it ness i n v iol ati on of the Tex as Di sc ipl ina ry

R ule s o f Pro fe ss io n a l Con duct

. SeeT EX . D I S C I P LIN A R Y R. P ROF ’ L C O ND UC T 3.08 cmt. 4, repr inted i n T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN ., ti t. 2, subti t. G app. A (V er non 200 5) (T EX . S T AT E B A R R. art. X, § 9). In c ontrast , R ubi o c ontends thatVi ll alo bos’ s t est imony is req uired to i nv est ig ate t he matters t hat a re the subj ectof Rub io’ s mot ion to dis q ual ify Vi ll alo bos and his off ic e from prosec uti ng R ubi o. Spec ific all y , R ubi o al leg es that suc h testi mony is neces sar

y to show “p ro sec utor ial mis condu ct persona ll y by M r. Vi ll alo bos. ” R ubi o refers to an al leg ed “blacklist” of

atto rneys creat ed b y

Villalobos, w hich includ es Rubio ’s counse l, and w hich “i ncl udes a s tated pol icy of re fusal to ple a barg ain w it h any of t he lawy ers on the li st or for t h a tm a tt e r t o co o p e ra t e in d is c o ve ry. ” R u b io a ls o a ll e ge s t h a tV il la lo b o s h a s “p e rs o n a ll y”
v iol ated an order

not to c ommunic ate w it h the press ; t hat V il lal obos has “e it her di re cte d or is o th e rw is e respon si ble for a buse of the s ubpoena proces s” thathas i nter fered w it h Rub io’ s a bil ity

to re tai n ex per

ts and produce w it ness es; and that Vi ll alo bos created a conf lict of

interest b y

hiring Rubio’s ap pellat e lawy er. 5 At the h earing o n April 2 9, the t rial cou rt d iscussed t he para me ters of Villalobos’s prop osed testim ony and setforth spe cif ic li mita tions a s follows:

Y ou are ex erci si ng thatt h is is y our r ig ht t o protect yoursel f f ro m com pulso ry

process. You are arguing t hatthere m ust be a plausib leW e no t e t hat t he t r i al cour t ’ s obse r v at i ons i n t hi s r egar d wer e un cont r ov er t ed. 6 5 show ing

. The is sue in thi s c ase, as has been arti cul ated to t he C our t, has nothi ng to do w it h the mental i mpres si ons or thoug ht proc ess es of the St ate in prepa ring the criminal case for trial. W e ar e not gett ing i nto s tr ategy or any thi ng l ik e tha t

. Now , if y ou are telling me tha t the seekin g of the de ath pen alty in this cas e has to do w it h a strateg ic—s ome sortof strateg y in order to g et him t o take life , w ell, the n, let me kn ow. B ecau se I have seen t hatdon e, bu t I don ’t thi nk that is w hat h appened here. In fact , t he C our

t i s p ri vy to a c o n vers ati on betw een t he St ate, the defense, and t he C our

t w here the Di str ict Atto rn ey made hims elf cl ear to the Cou rtthati t was his intent ion to re q uestthe death penal ty and tr y this ca se, that he bel iev ed th at t his i s the ty pe of case that shoul d g o to a j ur y and that h e sh o u ld b e se e k in g t h e d e a t h p e n a lt y. He t h o u gh t t h a t t h a t wa s h is d u ty. And t hat’ s h is prero gat iv e. That i s h is prosec utor ial di sc re ti on bei ng ex erci sed. Howev er , I w il l tak e not e of the fact th at M r. Vi ll alo bos is not—and as far as I know , bas e d on ev er ythi ng thatI hav e rev iewed, h as not b een involv ed in th e actu al pre p a ra tion o f the trial.[ ] He has ma de p olicy

6 deci si ons and he has made prosec utor ial dis creti onar y deci si ons in deci din g wh e t h e r o r n o tt o p ro s e c u t e a n d wh e t h e r o r n o tt o se e kt h e d e a t h p e n a lt y. But I’ m l o oki ng at the c ase law and I’ m thi nki ng , first of all , i t i s n ot w or k p ro duct

. A n d

I w o n ’t a l lo w t h e m tog e t

i n tow o r k p r o du c t , I do n ’t bel iev e, an d I’ mnot goi

ng to—I don’

t thi nk that they ar

e goi ng to. But

i f t hey attem p t to , a n d

if you obj

ect , I ’ mgoi ng tosu sta in it

. I’

mnot goi

ng toal low themto attem

pt to questio n Mr. Vi

ll alo bos conc er

nin g ther

eason s f

or pr osec uti ng th e c ase. I thi nk that iti s c lea r that Mr . Vi ll alo bos bel iev es that he has a duty to prosec ute any cr ime, es peci all y

a c ri me of thi s n ature tha t o c c u rs in h is Co u n ty, a s t h e e le ct e d Di s t ri ctAtt o rn e y. But there i s no q uest ion in the Cou rt ’s mind that the all eg ati on that has been made i s an al leg ati on reg ardin g defense lawy ers v ersus the ele cte d Di str ict Attor ney . Cal l itpo liti cs , c all i t pol icy creati on, c all i t w hatev er y ou w ant. I w ill notallow this case to b e c o m e som e discussio n—pu blic dis cus si on abou t how

the defense l awy ers feel aboutthe prosec utors or how the p ro sec utors feel aboutthe defense l awy ers. If, i n fact, thi s C our

t i s t o take i ts job se ri ousl y , and I do, a nd i f the Stat e of Tex as is to do w hat they are suppos ed to do, w hic h is seek j ust ic e,6

the n it is imp erative that th is Court make sure tha t this allegation they make is fer re ted out, and make sure thattheyproce ed w it h the prosec uti on of the re al facts of this ca se. (E mphasi s a dded)

. Fol low ing the hear ing , t he St ate fil e d an e merg ency moti on for sta y and t he pet it ion for w ri t of m andamus under

consi derati on in this cause, arg uin g that the t r i a l c o u rts h o u l d not hav e i s s u e d a n o rd e r “ d i re ct i n g M r . V i l l a l o b o s o r h i s s t a ff t o t e s t i fy regarding his tr ial strategy or discretiona ry

f unct ions as pro secut or.” III

. A N A LY S IS In de ter mini ng w hether , and w hen, a prosec uti ng attor ney shoul d prov ide tes ti mony in a pendi ng cr imi nal ca se, the law must bal ance the Stat e’s duty to seek j ust ic e, an d the dis creti on as soc iat ed w it h tha t duty , w it h a c ri minal defendant’ s r ig ht t o due proces s o f the law

. It is abunda ntl y

cl ear thatthe re al par

ty i n i nterestherein i s n ot en ti tl ed to su bpoena and q uest ion a prosec utor reg ardin g matte rs dev oted to prosec utor ial di sc re ti on, suc h as the deci si on to seek a death penal ty

. See Whitak er v. Sta te , 2 8 6 S

. W

. 3 d 3 5 5 , 3 6 6 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2009) ( hol din g thatthe defendant was not e nti tl ed to remand for dev elo pment of t he re cord on the Stat e’s re asons for seek ing the death penal ty ); Han ki ns v. State , 132 S.W .3d 3 80, 3 88 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2004)(ho ld ing thatthe tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n q uashi ng su bpoenas for d is tr ict attor ney s b ecaus e the d e fe ndant w as not enti tl ed to q uest ion them re g ardin g the ex erci se of thei r “ cons ti tuti onal ” dis creti on) ; Ladd
v. State , 3 S.W .3d 5 47, 5 74 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1 9 9 9 ) ( “W e hav e s peci fical ly reje cte d the cl ai m t ha t this [prose cuto rial] discretion violates the Eighth and Fourtee nth Ame ndm ent s.”);
see als o C antu v. State , 842 S.W .2d 6 67, 6 92 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992) ; Bar efield v. Sta te , 784 S.W .2d 38, 46 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89). It is likew ise clear tha t the work produ ct pr iv il eg e i s a ppl ic abl e to li ti g ati on fil es in cr im in a l m atters. See State ex rel. Curry v. W alk er , 873 S.W .2d 379, 381 (Tex . 1994). On the other hand; how ev er , it is eq ual ly cl earAs st at ed b y t he T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s: 7 I n T exas, t he e l ect ed d i st r i ct or count y at t or ney “ shal l r epr esentt he st at e i n al l cr i m i nal cases i n t he di st r i ct cour t s of hi s di st r i ct and i n ap peal s t her ef r om , excep t i n case s wher e he has b e e n , b e f o r e h is e le c tio n , e m p lo ye d a d v e r s e ly.” T h e o ff ic e o fa d is tr ic t a tt o r n e y is const i t ut i onal l y cr eat ed a nd p r ot ect ed; t hus, t he d i st r i ct at t or ney ’ s aut hor i t y “ cannotbe abr i dged ort aken away

. ” I n S ta te e x re l

. H ill v . P irtle , we he l d t hat “ [ a] t r i al cour t m aynot di squal i fy a di st r i ct at t or neyorhi s st affon t he basi s ofa conf l i ct of i nt er est t hat doe s notr i se t o t he l eve l of a d ue -proc es s vi ol ati on . ” L a n d e rs v . S ta te , 256 S. W

. 3d 2 95, 303
- 04 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 200 8) ( quot i ng S ta te e x re l. H ill v . P irtle , 887 S

. W

. 2d 92 1, 92 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 94 )) (i nterna l ci t ati on s om i t t ed ).

7 tha t prosecu tors can a nd m ust prese nt te stimo ny in oth er conte xts, such as those
re ga rd ing challenges to th e v enire un der Batson v. Ke ntu cky, 476 U .S. 79 ( 1986)

. S ee, e.g., Whitsey v

. St ate , 796 S.W .2d 7 07, 709 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1989)

. Fur ther , prosec uti ng attor ney s routi nel y

tes ti fy in matters per

tai nin g to dis q ual ific ati on. See , e.g ., La nde rs v. 7 State , 256 S.W .3d 2 95, 3 00- 301 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008)( in volving a di str ict attor ney tes ti fyi ng at a n e vide n tiar y hear ing on d is q ual ific ati on bas ed on an al leg ed c onfli ct of intere st); Sta te ex

r el. Young

v. Si xthJ u dicia l Di

st. C our t of Appea ls at Tex ar kana , 236 S.W .3d 207, 209 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)( same) ; see als o Eleby v. State , 172 S.W .3d 2 47, 249 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 20 05, p et. re f’d) ( same)

. At t he present sta g e of t he ins tant proceed ing s, the rela tor i s s eeki ng reli ef based
o n p re s u m p t io n s a b o u t t h e s c o p e o f t h e a n t ic ip a t e d qu e s t io n in g a n d re s u lt in g t e s t im o n y. Base d on the reco rd before this Co u rt ; h owev er, it is unclear w het her the relator’s presumpt ion s a bout the s cope of the anti ci pated q uest ion s and testi mony are c onsi ste nt
w ith the trial court’s ruling at issue herein. Moreover, and f und am ent ally , in order for this Cou rtto ass ess w hether the tr ial co urt has co rrect ly w eig hed t h e i n te re st s of the St ate against th e cou nte rbalan c ing i nte rests of the de fend ant , we w ould nee d a record cont a i n i n g ( 1 ) t h e q u e s t i o n s t o b e p o s i t e d t o V i l l a l o b o s , ( 2 ) t h e s p e c i fi c o bj e ct i o ns or8

answers t o be ass erted b y Vi ll alo bos in re spons e, an d ( 3) the tria l co u rt ’s rul ing s o n the obj ect ion s. N one of thes e matt ers h av e been in cl uded in the rec ord before us. See, e.g., Han ki ns , 132 S.W .3d at 387 (“ T he d istrict attorne y s each f iled mo tions to q u ash th eir subpo enas. A hear ing w as hel d on appel lan t’ s moti on, at w hic h appel lan t offered int o the
re cord the q uest ion s h e s oug ht to ask the dis tr ict attor ney s, and the tri al cour t g ra nted the dis tr ict attor neys’ moti ons to q uash. ”)

. Stat ed other w is e, in order

for a n appel lat e c our

t t o re v iew a r uli ng on a moti on to q uash, i t ty pic all y req uires thatthe proponentof the q uest ion s t o be ask ed offer the m in to the rec ord, the pers on proffer ing testi mony to answer or assert a privi lege, and t he trial co urt to ma ke a ruling on any objection s. Th is procedu re has not been foll ow ed in this case, and acco rd ing ly , the parti es and t his C our t are l eft to spec ula te ab out t he pot enti al course of proc eedi ng s. As prev iou sl y st ated by

thi s C our

t: The abs tr a ctand hy pothet ic al factual and procedu ra l si tuati ons that the re lat o r h a s su g g est ed may ar is e do not rais e “ due proces s” or othe r cons ti tuti onal i ss ues at t his ti me. A co urt has no j u risdicti on to render an opi nio n on a cont ro v ersy thati s n ot y et r ipe

. City of G ar lan d v . Lou ton , 691 S.W .2d 603 , 605 (Tex.198 5). To the e xtent that re lat or ’s peti ti on s eeks mandamus reli ef based upon fact s that hav e noty et oc curred a n d a re merely hy pothet ic al, w e ag re e w it h res p o n d e n t tha t this court do es no t have jurisdiction to ren der ad v isory opi nio ns on factua l si tuati ons that mayor may not ar is e i n the future. Jones v. W

ester gr en , 771 S.W .2d 669, 671 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1989, no pet.)

. In shor t, thi s Cou rt is prohi bit ed from i ss uin g adv is or y opi nio ns in our

mandamus auth or ity

or other w is e. See T EX . C ON ST . ar t. V, § 6; Gar

re tt v. State , 74 9 S. W .2 d 78 4, 8 03 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1 9 8 8 ) (o p. on moti on for re hear ing ) (p lurali ty opi nio n) ; Per

ez v. Sta te , 938 S.W .2d 761 , 764 (Tex. App. –Au stin 19 97, pet. ref’d). IV. C ONCL US I ON T he Cou rt, having examine d an d f ully conside red the petitio n for w rit of man dam us,9

t h e r e s p o n s e , and the rep ly theret o, is of

the op inion th at relato r has notshown itself ent itled to the relief

sought. Accord in gl y, t h e s t ay previously impo sed b y

this Court is LIF TED, and the petit ion for w ri t of mandamus i s DE NI ED

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52. 8(a).

_________

_________

___ ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice

Do not p ubl is h. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2(b). Di ss enti ng M emora ndum Opi nio n by Ju sti ce Vel a. Del iv ered and filed the 17th day of Ma y , 201 0.