Court Opinion

ID: 9913093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 20:09:04.451577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:01.190910
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                       San Antonio, Texas

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          No. 04-23-00943-CR

                                     IN RE James RUBIO, Relator

                                    Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 20, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

           Relator James Rubio filed a petition for writ of mandamus for this court to order the trial

court to issue an order in his habeas proceeding. However, Rubio is not entitled to the relief he

has requested. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(c); Ex parte Flowers, 665 S.W.3d

575, 577 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (Slaughter, J., dissenting).

           Under article 11.07, section 3(c), “it shall be the duty of the convicting court to decide

whether there are controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the legality of the

applicant’s confinement.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(c); Ex parte Harrington,

310 S.W.3d 452, 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). “If the convicting court decides that there are no

such issues, the clerk shall immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the

1
 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1991-CR-6722-W2, styled Ex parte Rubio, pending in the 187th Judicial
District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd presiding.
                                                                                      04-23-00943-CR

application, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made.

Failure of the court to act within the allowed 20 days shall constitute such a finding.” TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Flowers, 665 S.W.3d at 577 n.4.

       In this case, Rubio’s habeas application was forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals,

who then dismissed the application without written order, citing the reason that Rubio’s sentence

has been discharged. See Harrington, 310 S.W.3d at 456 (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.

art. 11.07). The trial court has no further ministerial duty in this case. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 11.07; In re Williams, No. 13-12-00228-CR, 2012 WL 1255207, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 12, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing

Stearnes v. Clinton, 780 S.W.2d 216, 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)).

       Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

                                                  PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                -2-