Court Opinion

ID: 9396053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 10:10:00.888588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:13.799375
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                           TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                  No. 10-23-00061-CR

                           IN RE ALLAN LATOI STORY

                                 Original Proceeding

                            From the 19th District Court
                             McLennan County, Texas
                            Trial Court No. 2011-2499-C1

                              DISSENTING OPINION

       This petition for a writ of mandamus seeks to compel the trial court to rule on a

petition to authorize depositions under Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

The 202 Petition was received by the district clerk on October 31, 2022 and has not been

ruled upon by the trial court. For some unknown reason, the district clerk apparently

filed the petition for prefiling depositions in Story’s criminal trial court proceeding, which

was the same criminal trial court proceeding from which this Court had, on September 7,

2022, reversed and remanded another trial court ruling. Thus, when the current petition

for a writ of mandamus was filed in this Court, the Clerk of this Court gave it a CR

designation, notwithstanding that it is clearly a civil proceeding (to authorize depositions
under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202—the name says it all).

        But there are many procedural problems in this proceeding, and the Relator’s

motion being filed in a criminal trial court proceeding is merely the beginning. Because

it was filed in a criminal proceeding, the filing fee was not collected in the trial court or

when the petition for a writ of mandamus was filed here. If the Relator had sought to

proceed as indigent, then he would have had to comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas

Civil Practice and Remedies Code.        Moreover, when he filed this civil mandamus

proceeding, we did not notify the Relator of any procedural defects and give him the

opportunity to cure them before we ruled on the mandamus proceeding. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 44.3. In addition to the procedural defects regarding when and how it was filed, the

petition suffers a number of other procedural defects such as the failure to comply with

the necessary contents of a petition and the required appendix for such petitions. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.3.

        Accordingly, rather than deny the petition at this juncture, I would notify the

Relator, Story, of the many procedural defects, some of which are chronicled above, and

require their correction before proceeding to address the merits of the petition or dismiss

it for failure to comply with the applicable rules.

                                          TOM GRAY
                                          Chief Justice

Dissenting Opinion delivered and filed May 17, 2023

In re Story                                                                            Page 2