Source: https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/from-the-prosecutors-tool-shed-the-writ-of-mandamus/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:14:29+00:00

Document:
“The judge did what?’ I asked the agitated prosecutor who burst into my office at 3 o’clock on what had been a quiet Friday afternoon.
“He should not have done that,” I agreed.
Thus was my introduction to the rarely used tools in the prosecutor’s tool shed, the writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition. I have worked as the appellate attorney for felonies at the Midland County District Attorney’s Office for only a couple of years. The prosecutors in the office didn’t have much familiarity with the extraordinary writs, and our form bank was bare of writs filed by the State. So I dove in to do my own research on these two writs, and I’ve been asked to share what I learned with other prosecutors. In this article, I will not cover all of the details of the writ of mandamus, but rather I’ll offer some suggestions for your consideration before you employ this tool.
I needed an instruction manual for this mandamus, so I reached out to colleagues for advice and forms. The State Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (SPA)2 represents the State in all proceedings before the Court of Criminal Appeals, and I thought maybe they had dealt with extraordinary writs. I learned the SPA does not customarily become involved in mandamus proceedings because they need to be filed quickly, are fact-intensive, and are required to be sworn—but the attorneys at the SPA are willing to assist by consulting on the legal issues, research, or editing.
I next contacted TDCAA’s research attorney, Lauren Marfin, and I explained the situation to her. She provided a copy of the section about mandamus from the State’s Appellate Manual.3 It is a useful manual about the nuts and bolts of the mandamus petition and a great starting point for research. Lauren also put me in touch with David Newell, an assistant district attorney in the appellate division of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. David provided invaluable advice as a consultant about procedure and ideas.
No adequate remedy at law. While the existence of a “ministerial act” is the first prong of the mandamus test, I recommend starting any analysis by first determining whether another tool is available—that might typically be the appeal route. As appellate courts abhor the use of the extraordinary writ, they are inclined to say the remedy is via appeal, so the mandamus applicant must convince the appellate court that there is no other legal remedy available based on the facts of the case.
Under appropriate circumstances, the statute may not authorize the appeal, and a prosecutor may proceed with the writ of mandamus.
Another approach to consider, even if you have a remedy at law, is whether the remedy at law is adequate in the circumstances of your case. A remedy at law, though it technically exists, “may nevertheless be so uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient, inappropriate, or ineffective to be deemed inadequate.”15 For example, in Bowen v. Carnes,16 the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the respondent judge abused his discretion to deprive the defendants of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice and that the ordeal of trial and appeal were a waste of public resources. The mandamus article in the State’s Appellate Manual contains several cases in which the Court of Criminal Appeals granted mandamus relief as the remedy at law was inadequate in the circumstances.
However, when one begins research through the Westlaw or Lexis databases, it quickly becomes apparent that the ministerial act is an elusive concept. The additional definition of a “clear right” is also somewhat unsettled. “A clear right to relief is shown when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or caselaw sources), and clearly controlling legal principals.”19 The Court of Criminal Appeals has engendered some controversy in recent years when it added “a clear right to the relief sought” in its articulation of the ministerial act.20 There are some who believe this has liberalized the exercise of mandamus authority.21 The point is that prosecutors must do thorough research to support the argument that we have a ministerial act or clear right to relief in a given situation. Anticipate the counterpoints and give the responses in the petition.
Although the Court of Criminal Appeals has on occasion suggested a legal issue’s status as one of first impression means the law is not well-settled, it has since clarified that an issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief.22 So do not give up if you are plowing new ground.
In which court should I file the petition?
Does anybody have a form?
For those who have made it this far, the next step is to put it all together in proper form to present the case in the best possible light—or at least avoid the petition getting tossed on a technicality. One quickly discovers there is a lack of specificity as to form, content, and procedures for a petition for writ of mandamus for a criminal matter in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (TRAP). TRAP 52 provides rules for original proceedings of civil matters in the court of appeals and Texas Supreme Court, which include writs of prohibition and mandamus. Use TRAP 52 for guidance to the essential components of a petition for writ of mandamus. You may also look to a form book such as the Texas Criminal Practice Guide30 or call on a colleague who has plowed this ground before and ask for a form.
TRAP 72 governs extraordinary matters in the Court of Criminal Appeals. If the writ of mandamus is filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals, one must also include a “motion for leave to file” a writ of mandamus as instructed in TRAP 72. This rule does not contain any guidance as to the content, form, or procedure for the motion for leave to file, but TRAP 10 contains the requisites of a motion filed in an appellate court.31 As to the form of the petition for writ of mandamus to file in the Court of Criminal Appeals, use the guidance in TRAP 52.
In addition, attach a reporter’s record of the hearing if pertinent to the claim for relief. Contact the court reporter to discuss how quickly the record can be transcribed, format options, and costs. You may need the transcript only of the hearing proceedings if you pursue just the petition for writ of mandamus. However, if you intend to pursue a writ of mandamus and the appeal tracks concurrently, then you may want the appeals court format, which includes a master index and exhibits attached to the reporter’s record. This second method may cost more for the initial copy, but it may be cheaper for both if the appeal route must be pursued as well.
Much to my surprise, in the course of my research for the mandamus petition, I discovered a few recent cases that showed the Court of Criminal Appeals’s preference for the subject matter of my case to be handled via the appeals process. In other words, there appears to be an adequate remedy at law without resorting to a mandamus, so I did not get to make use of it. However, I am better prepared for the next time a judge steps outside his or her authority.
If you decide to pursue a petition for writ of mandamus, do so judiciously. Remember that it is to be used only in extraordinary circumstances and not just with every disagreement you have with a judge. Prosecutors are charged with seeking justice, and a judge takes an oath to uphold the laws and constitution of this state36 in every case. A judge does not get holiday from that responsibility.
1 I hate to give away the ending in the first paragraph, but this case is pending on appeal so my vagueness is necessary until the outcome is final.
2 The State Prosecuting Attorney’s Office website address is www.spa.state.tx.us.
3 Although the State’s Appellate Manual was a grant-funded publication and is no longer available for purchase, in early 2014, TDCAA will publish Writs by Andréa Jacobs, which will cover all non-capital writs.
4 Landford v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 847 S.W.2d 581, 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
5 State’s Appellate Manual, 2007-2009, “Mandamus” (2007), page 257; citing 38 Tex. Jur. 3d Extraordinary Writs, §167 (1998).
6 State’s Appellate Manual, 2007-2009, “Mandamus” (2007), page 257.
8 Id., citing Garcia v. State, 596 S.W.2d 524, 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
9 See Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 676 n. 4 (Tex. 1996).
10 State ex rel. Hill v. Pirtle, 887 S.W.2d 921, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
12 Neveu v. Culver, 105 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (citing State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)).
13 State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citation omitted); State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
14 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01.
15 In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citations omitted).
16 Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
17 See In re State ex rel. De Leon, 89 S.W.3d 195, 197 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (writ denied because State had an adequate remedy at law, “which it failed to exercise in a timely manner”).
18 State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 34 S.W.3d at 927 (quoting State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)).
19 In re State ex rel. Tharp, 393 S.W.3d 751 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (citations omitted).
20 See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citations omitted).
22 In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122, n. 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194-199-203 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592, 594-96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)).
23 Tex. Const. art. V, §5.
24 Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
25 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
26 Tex. Const. art. V, §5(b).
27 See Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
28 Landford v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 847 S.W.2d 581, 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
30 See Texas Criminal Practice Guide, §4:90B.100 (Matthew Bender).
31 Tex. R. App. P. 10.
32 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3 & 52.7(a)(1).
33 State’s Appellate Manual, 2007-2009, “Mandamus” (2007), page 269; see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3 & 52.7(a)(1).
34 State’s Appellate Manual, 2007-2009, “Mandamus” (2007), page 269.
35 Tex. R. App. P. 9.4.
36 Tex. Const. Art. XVI, §1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §167
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 44
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §5
 v. 
 §5
 v. 
 v. 
 §4
 §1