Petitions for Writs of Mandamus and Writs of Prohibition Denied and 

Opinion filed October 27, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00451-CR

NO. 14-20-00452-CR

NO. 14-20-00453-CR

NO. 14-20-00454-CR

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. KIM OGG, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS

WRITS OF MANDANUS

WRITS OF PROHIBITION

County Criminal Court at Law No. 16

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 2288950 & 2288951

OPINION

On June 23, 2020, relator the State of Texas ex rel. Kim Ogg, Harris County

District Attorney, filed petitions for writs of mandamus and petitions for writs of

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

App. P. 52. In the petitions for writs of mandamus, the State asks this court to 
2

compel the Honorable Darrell Jordan, presiding judge of County Criminal Court at 

Law No. 16 in Harris County, to set aside his June 11, 2020 ruling in trial court 

cause numbers 2288950 and 2288951, The State of Texas v. Jacob Darrin 

Straughan, granting Straughan’s motion to conduct a bench trial without the 

State’s consent to waiver of a jury trial. In the petitions for writs of prohibition, the 

State seeks to prevent Judge Jordan from proceeding to trial with Judge Jordan 

acting as factfinder.

The State also filed motions for temporary relief of the proceedings below.

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On June 24, 2020, we ordered a stay of the trial 

proceedings. On July 8, 2020, Straughan filed a response.

BACKGROUND

Straughan was charged on December 1, 2019, with misdemeanor offenses of 

evading arrest and assault. The cases were reset multiple times at Straughan’s 

request. In February 2020, the State and Straughan entered a pretrial intervention 

contract, and the cases were reset to December 18, 2020. On May 18, 2020,

Straughan was charged with two new offenses—misdemeanor assault and felony 

violation of a protective order.

On June 10, 2020, Straughan moved for a speedy trial. Straughan asserted 

the State agreed to continue the intervention contract even though there was 

another incident on April 17, 2020. However, on May 18, 2020, the State accepted 

new charges for the April 17, 2020 incident. On June 4, 2020, Straughan was 

advised the State intended to terminate the intervention contract. At a hearing on 

June 8, 2020, Straughan took the position that if the intervention contract were 

terminated, he wished to waive his right to a jury trial and proceed to a bench trial. 
3

Straughan pointed out that under the Texas Supreme Court’s emergency orders 

regarding COVID-19, he cannot have a jury trial until August 1, 2020, and 

probably would not have a jury trial until 2021.

Straughan also filed a written waiver of a jury and a request for a bench trial, 

arguing that it is his right to waive a jury. Straughan asked the trial court to waive

Code of Criminal Procedure article 1.13, which provides that the State must

consent to a bench trial:

The defendant in a criminal prosecution for any offense other than a 

capital felony case in which the state notifies the court and the

defendant that it will seek the death penalty shall have the right, upon 

entering a plea, to waive the right of trial by jury, conditioned, 

however, that, except as provided by Article 27.19, the waiver must 

be made in person by the defendant in writing in open court with the

consent and approval of the court, and the attorney representing the 

state. The consent and approval by the court shall be entered of record 

on the minutes of the court, and the consent and approval of the 

attorney representing the state shall be in writing, signed by that 

attorney, and filed in the papers of the cause before the defendant 

enters the defendant’s plea.

Tex. Code Crim Proc. Ann. art. 1.13(a).

The trial court held a hearing on June 11, 2020, at which Straughan 

withdrew his motion for speedy trial. The reporter’s record reflects the trial court

set the case for a bench trial on June 26, 2020. The State then filed these writs, as 

set forth above.

APPLICABLE LAW

To be entitled to relief on a petition for writ of mandamus, the State must 

demonstrate the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial and the State has 
4

no other adequate legal remedy. State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194, 198 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2003). To be entitled to relief on a petition for writ of 

prohibition, the State must show it has no other adequate remedy at law and is 

clearly entitled to the relief sought. Curry v. Wilson, 853 S.W.2d 40, 432–44 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1993). The State has no right to appeal the trial court’s ruling. See Tex. 

Code Crim Proc. Ann. art. 44.01. This satisfies the no-adequate-legal-remedy 

requirement. See Poe, 98 S.W.3d at 203.

To satisfy the ministerial-act requirement, the relief sought must be clear and 

indisputable such that its merits are beyond dispute and there is nothing left to the 

exercise of discretion or judgment. Id. at 198. Similarly, a writ of prohibition will 

issue to require execution of a matter whose merit is indisputable. Knowles v. 

Scofield, 598 S.W.2d 854, 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

Generally, absent the State’s consent and approval of a defendant’s jury

waiver, a trial court has a ministerial duty to conduct a jury trial on the issue of 

guilt or innocence and abuses its discretion by serving as factfinder, entitling the 

State to mandamus relief. State ex rel. Curry v. Carr, 847 S.W.2d 561, 562 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1992); In re Watkins, 390 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no 

pet.); Tex. Code Crim Proc. Ann. art. 1.13(a).
5

ANALYSIS

The emergency order1 provides:

3. Subject only to constitutional provisions, all courts in 

Texas may in any case, civil or criminal—and must to avoid risk to 

court staff, parties, attorneys, jurors, and the public—without a 

participant’s consent:

a. . . . modify or suspend any and all deadlines and 

procedures, whether prescribed by statute, rule, or order, for a 

stated period ending no later than December 1, 2020 . . . .

The emergency order expressly allows the court in a criminal case to 

suspend all procedures prescribed by statute. The State has no constitutional right 

to a jury trial—that right belongs to the defendant. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 10. The 

State’s right to withhold consent to the defendant’s waiver of his constitutional 

right to a jury is statutory. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 1.13(a). The trial 

court’s application of the emergency order to suspend the consent requirement in 

article 1.13(a) is consistent with the plain language of the emergency order. Thus, 

the State has not established a clear legal right to the relief sought.

1 See Twenty-Sixth Emergency Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster ¶ 3(a), Misc. 

Docket No. 20-9112 (Tex. Sept. 18, 2020), 83 Tex. B.J. –, available at

https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1449738/209112.pdf. At the time of the trial court’s ruling, the 

Seventeenth Emergency Order was in effect. Seventeenth Emergency Order Regarding the 

COVID-19 State of Disaster ¶ 3(a), Misc. Docket No. 20-9071 (Tex. May 26, 2020), 83 Tex. B.J. 496,

496 available at https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1446702/209071.pdf. Because the issue is

subject to the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine, we 

proceed under the current effective emergency order, which is substantively the same. Pharris v. State, 

165 S.W.3d 681, 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (recognizing exception applies when (1) challenged action 

was too short in duration to be litigated fully before action ceased or expired and (2) reasonable 

expectation exists that same complaining party will be subjected to same action again).
6

Before this court, the State claims: (1) suspending article 1.13(a) is 

inconsistent with the Texas Constitution’s grant to the Legislature to govern the 

waiver of jury rights and (2) suspending article 1.13(a) is inconsistent with the

statutory authority granted to the Supreme Court of Texas. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 

15; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.0035. Our review of the record reflects the former 

argument was not presented to the trial court. Accordingly, we do not address it.

See In re State ex rel. Rodriguez, No. 13-19-00200-CR, 2019 WL 2426597, at *5 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 10, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (recognizing “[i]t is well established that arguments 

which are not presented to the trial court will not be considered in a petition for 

writ of mandamus.”) (citing In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex.

1991) (orig. proceeding) (refusing to consider argument that was not presented to 

trial court). See also In re Floyd, No. 05-16-00491-CV, 2016 WL 2353874, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (same).

Turning to the latter, the State argued in the trial court that the portion of the 

Government Code authorizing emergency orders allows suspension of procedures 

“for the conduct of any court proceeding.” The State contended “for the conduct”

is a limitation on the types of procedures that may be suspended and it does not 

include “things that are substantive in nature,” such as the statutory requirement 

that the State consent to a defendant’s waiver of a jury trial.

The State’s argument is not based on the plain language of the emergency 

order, which allows the trial court to modify any procedure subject only to 

constitutional limitations. See Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim. 
7

App. 1991) (discussing plain-language test). Assuming, without deciding, that “for 

the conduct” imposes a limitation on the type of procedure that an emergency order

may suspend, it is a statutory, not constitutional limitation. See Tex. Gov’t Code 

Ann. § 22.0035. Because the State has not shown that “any procedure” does not 

encompass a bench trial, it has not established it is indisputably entitled to the 

relief it seeks or that the trial court had a ministerial duty to deny appellant’s 

request.

The State’s petitions are denied, and we lift the stay previously imposed in 

the underlying causes. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Spain.

Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).