Court Opinion

ID: 9408930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 07:10:21.43921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.767509
License: Public Domain

In The

                            Court of Appeals

                Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                           __________________

                          NO. 09-23-00188-CR
                           __________________

                 IN RE ROBERT DEVON HENSON

__________________________________________________________________

                      Original Proceeding
      Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
             Trial Cause Nos. 22-39601 and 22-39602
__________________________________________________________________

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

     In a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, a petition that Robert

Devon Henson filed as an original proceeding with this Court, Henson

seeks to compel the trial court to grant the motions he filed to dismiss the

indictments currently pending against him in Trial Court Cause

Numbers 22-39601 and 22-39602. 1 According to Henson, his prosecution

     1Relator signed the petition as “Robert D.Hinson.” According to the
indictments, “ROBERT DEVON HENSON AKA ROBERT HENSON
AKA ROBERT HINSON” is the relator’s alleged name. For consistency,
we use Relator’s name as it appears in his indictments.
                                  1
for the offenses alleged in both of the indictments are barred by the

statute of limitations applicable to felonies. 2

      A relator seeking mandamus relief in a criminal case must

establish two things: (1) that he has no other remedy at law, and (2) that

the act he seeks to compel is ministerial. 3 Henson has not shown the trial

court has a ministerial duty to address his pro se motions. 4 Moreover,

were Henson to be convicted of an offense that is barred by limitations,

an appeal would provide Henson with an adequate remedy to the issue

he raises in his petition. 5

      For these reasons, we conclude that Henson has not shown he is

entitled to relief on the argument and the evidence he presented to

support his petition.

      PETITION DENIED.
                                                   PER CURIAM
Submitted on July 11, 2023
Opinion Delivered July 12, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

      2See  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 12.01.
       3Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)

(orig. proceeding).
       4See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

(“a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a
defendant who is represented by counsel”).
       5Smith, 962 S.W.2d at 592.

                                     2