Court Opinion

ID: 2905915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-09 23:30:36.60595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:42.542582
License: Public Domain

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-06-053 CV

____________________

IN RE RONALD E. KNOX

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION 
	Ronald E. Knox petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial
court to rule on his motion for new trial and request for a bench warrant.  In a criminal
case, a motion for new trial is deemed denied 75 days after sentence is imposed.  Tex. R.
App. P. 21.8.  The relator acknowledges that his motion for new trial has been overruled
by operation of law.  Knox could have perfected an appeal and presented an issue on the
trial court's failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Knox's motion for new trial.  See,
e.g., Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
	The existence of an adequate remedy at law in the form of an appeal precludes
mandamus relief.  Alvarez v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 977 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1998).  In this case, the relator has not shown that he is entitled to the relief sought.
	The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore denied.
	WRIT DENIED.
								PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered March 2, 2006
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ.