NO. 12-15-00180-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

DONALD ADKINS, 

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appearing pro se, Relator Donald Adkins has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. He 

asserts that he has repeatedly but unsuccessfully attempted to invoke his constitutional right to a 

speedy trial. He contends that the district attorney of Sabine County and the judge of the 273rd

Judicial District Court of Sabine County have deprived him of this right. He concludes that a 

writ of mandamus directing the dismissal of the pending charges against him is his only available 

remedy. We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.

This Court’s mandamus authority is limited to (1) a judge of a district or county court in 

the court of appeals district; (2) a judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court 

of inquiry under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 52 in the court of appeals district; or 

(3) a situation in which a writ of mandamus is necessary to protect this Court’s jurisdiction. 

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 2004). The district attorney is not a judge, and 

Relator has not alleged that a writ of mandamus against the district attorney is necessary to 

protection this Court’s jurisdiction. 

Moreover, to obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must show that he 

has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm and that what he seeks to compel is a 

ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth 

Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) 

(orig. proceeding). Here, Relator seeks an order directing the respondents “to comply with the 
2

mandates set forth by the constitution in the Promise of Due Process and a fast and speedy trial 

and dismiss with prejudice all counts held against the Relator being called a complaint, warrant, 

indictment et-cet[era]” as listed in Section III of his mandamus petition. A defendant seeking to 

compel a dismissal of an indictment on speedy trial grounds has an adequate remedy at law. 

Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 592-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (orig. proceeding). 

Therefore, mandamus is not available to compel the dismissal.

CONCLUSION

Relator’s allegations against the Sabine County district attorney do not fall within this 

Court’s mandamus jurisdiction. Consequently, we have no authority to consider the merits of 

Relator’s mandamus petition insofar as it pertains to the district attorney. Relator has failed to 

establish that he has no adequate remedy at law to obtain the dismissal he requests. Therefore, 

he has not shown he is entitled to mandamus relief against the respondent trial judge. 

Accordingly, we dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as to the Sabine County district 

attorney and deny the petition as to the judge of the 273rd Judicial District Court of Sabine 

County. All pending motions are overruled as moot.

Opinion delivered November 9, 2016.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 9, 2016

NO. 12-15-00180-CR

DONALD ADKINS,

Relator

V.

HON. CHARLES R. MITCHELL AND J. KEVIN DUTTON,

Respondents

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed 

by DONALD ADKINS. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on July 

13, 2015, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that a 

writ of mandamus should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED 

that the said petition for writ of mandamus as to the Sabine County district attorney, J. KEVIN 

DUTTON, be, and the same is, hereby DISMISSED; that the said petition for writ of mandamus

as to the judge of the 273rd Judicial District Court of Sabine County, CHARLES R. 

MITCHELL, be, and the same is hereby DENIED.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.