## 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 w rit 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 273 rd
Judicial District Court of Sabine Cou nty 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 li mited 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 th is C ourt’s jurisdiction.
T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 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 distri ct attorney is necessary to protection this Court’s jur isdiction.
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
min isterial 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 respond ents “to comply with the2

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).
There fore, manda mus is not available to compel the dismissal.

C ONCLUSION 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 mand amus 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 273 rd 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. MITC HELL AND J. KEVIN DUTTON , Respondent s

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus fi led 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, ADJ UDGED 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 D ISMISSED ; that the said petition for writ of mandamus
as to the judge of the 273 rd Judicial District Cour t of Sabine County
, CHARLES R.
MITCHELL
, be, and the same is hereby D ENIED

.

By per curiam opinion

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