Court Opinion

ID: 9365779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 07:10:44.560104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.000075
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed January 23, 2023

                                    S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00028-CV

                     IN RE ROBERT B. READ, JR., Relator

           Original Proceeding from the 366th Judicial District Court
                             Collin County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 366-81170-06

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Miskel
                            Opinion by Justice Reichek
       Before the Court is relator’s January 9, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus.

The petition concerns a postconviction motion relator filed in the trial court on or

about May 25, 2022, requesting the production of grand jury transcripts.

       Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus does not comply with the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure. For example, the petition does not contain a complete list of

all parties, a table of contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the issues or

points presented, or a statement of facts with record references, and the prayer does

not “clearly state the nature of the relief sought.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(c),

(f)–(i).
      Even if relator corrected these deficiencies, we conclude that relator did not

demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. To establish a right to mandamus relief

in a criminal case, the relator must show that the trial court violated a ministerial

duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d

117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). To the extent relator asks this

Court to compel the trial court to grant his motion, we deny relator’s petition. We

may compel the trial court to rule on a motion, but we may not direct the trial court

on how to rule on a motion. In re Autrey, No. 05-22-01009-CV, 2022 WL 5113123,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 5, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). To the extent

relator asks this Court to compel the trial court to rule on his motion, after reviewing

the petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to

demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition.

      Further, the appendix attached to relator’s petition contains unredacted

sensitive information, including a minor’s full name, in violation of the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. We strike relator’s petition for writ

of mandamus, including its attached appendix, for relator’s failure to comply with

the Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure’s redaction requirements. See In re R.B.,

No. 05-21-01063-CV, 2022 WL 202986, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2022,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (exercising discretion, in the interest of judicial

                                          –2–
economy, to consider merits of petition filed in violation of the appellate rules’

redaction requirements before striking petition).

                                           /Amanda L. Reichek/
                                           AMANDA L. REICHEK
                                           JUSTICE

220028F.P05

                                        –3–