Court Opinion

ID: 9386966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 07:10:38.563474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:10.267007
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-23-00077-CR
                               __________________

                            IN RE ANTONIO JONES

__________________________________________________________________

                          Original Proceeding
           Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
            Trial Cause Nos. 20-34587, 20-34266 & 20-34008
 ________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Antonio Jones filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. We notified Jones of

certain defects in his petition. In his amended mandamus petition, Jones makes

conclusory statements that he has been deprived of a pretrial detention hearing, that

the trial court failed to follow article 15.17 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,

that the trial court denied a bail request, that the trial court violated Jones’s rights

under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution

in a manner not described in the petition, and that double jeopardy is implicated for

reasons not explained in the petition.

                                           1
      To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must

show that he has no adequate remedy at law and that he seeks to compel a ministerial

act. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig.

proceeding). The relator must provide the Court with a sufficient record to establish

his right to mandamus relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(h), (k), 52.7(a)(1). Jones failed

to provide a record of certified or sworn documents sufficient to support his

mandamus petition. Jones failed to supply argument and supporting authority for his

bare complaints. We conclude Jones has not shown that he is entitled 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 April 11, 2023
Opinion Delivered April 12, 2023
Do Not Publish

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

                                           2