Court Opinion

ID: 9555233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 07:10:15.796356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:54.197396
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-23-00233-CR
                              __________________

                           IN RE JOSHUA A. WADE

__________________________________________________________________

                          Original Proceeding
            252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 23DCCR0194
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator Joshua A. Wade asks this

Court to compel the trial court to hold an examining trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

Ann. art. 16.01 (“The accused in any felony case shall have the right to an examining

trial before indictment in the county having jurisdiction of the offense[.]”). We deny

mandamus relief. 1

      1Relator failed to certify that he served a copy of the mandamus petition on

the Respondent or the Real Party in Interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We use Rule
2, however, to look beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See
Tex. R. App. P. 2.
                                        1
      To be entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator must show that

he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm and he must show that

he seeks to compel a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial

decision. See In re 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). “If a

party properly files a motion with the trial court in a criminal case, the court has a

ministerial duty to rule on the motion within a reasonable time after the motion has

been submitted to the court for a ruling or after the party has requested a ruling.” In

re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig.

proceeding). The mandamus record must show that the motion was filed and brought

to the attention of the trial court for a ruling, and the trial court failed to rule on the

motion within a reasonable time after the motion was submitted to the court for a

ruling or after the party requested a ruling. Id. The mandamus record must contain a

sworn or certified copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing

the matter complained of. See Tex. R. App P. 52.3(k)(1). A relator must certify that

he has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the

petition is supported by competent evidence in the appendix or record. See id.

52.3(j).

      Relator claims the judge who conducted his arraignment on March 2, 2023,

never notified him of his right to an examining trial. Relator asks this Court to order

                                            2
the trial court to apply Article 16.01, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex.

Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.16.01 (Examining Trial). He fails to mention whether he

has been indicted. He fails to mention whether he is represented by counsel in the

trial court. He fails to show that he invoked his right to an examining trial at a proper

time and in an appropriate manner. He fails to describe his attempts to bring his

request for an examining trial to the attention of the trial court. He fails to support

his petition with an appendix. He cites section 132.001 of the Civil Practice and

Remedies Code, which authorizes a person to use an unsworn declaration in lieu of

a sworn declaration, certification, or affidavit, but his declaration is not in the form

required by section 132.002. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001. To

be effective as a substitute for an affidavit, an unsworn declaration must be made

under penalty of perjury, so that the State may prosecute him for perjury if he attests

to a statement that is false. See id.

      Relator failed to establish a right to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny

the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                             PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 8, 2023
Opinion Delivered August 9, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

                                           3