in Re: Andrew Pete

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 16, 2015·No. 05-15-01530-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

05-15-01529-CV

05-15-01529-CV;05-15-01530-CV; 05-15-01531-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS

12/16/2015 1:15:22 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

No. ________________________

FILED IN

5th COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

12/16/2015 1:15:22 PM

LISA MATZ

Clerk

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT DALLAS, TEXAS

In re Andrew Pete, Relator

292nd CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT Cause No(s): F1233559; F1233560; F1233561

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS & MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY

THE ALLEN LAW FIRM

Scottie D. Allen

4144 N. Central Expressway Suite 650

Dallas, Texas 75204

Telephone: (214) 824-7711 Facsimile: (214) 824-7714 SBN: 01058020

Attorney For Relator

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Relator: Andrew Pete, Defendant

Relator’s Counsel: Scottie D. Allen 4144 N. Central Expressway Suite 650

Dallas, Texas 75204

Telephone: (214) 824-7711 Facsimile: (214) 824-7714 SBN: 01058020

Respondent: Honorable Brandon Birmingham 292nd Judicial District Court Frank Crowley Courthouse

133 N. Riverfront Boulevard, 6th Floor Dallas, TX 75207

Party In Interest: Dallas County District Attorney Susan Hawk

Frank Crowley Courthouse

133 N. Riverfront Boulevard, 11th Floor Dallas, TX 75207

Telephone: (214) 653-3600 Facsimile: (214) 653-5774

Page 2 of 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identities of Parties and Counsel…………….........……………………..…………………........ 2 Table of Contents ……..……………………………………………………………………..…. 3 Index of Authorities…………………………………..………………………………………….4 Statement of the Case………..…………………………………..………………………………5 Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………..…………………………….5 Issue Presented:

DOES THE TRIAL COURT HAVE AUTHORITY TO GRANT A MISTRIAL AS TO THE PUNISHMENT PHASE ONLY? ...……………………….………….... 6

Argument and Authorities…………………………………………………………..…………… 6 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW…………………………………………………………. 6

II. A POST-VERDICT MISTRIAL RETURNS THE CASE TO ITS ORIGINAL POSTURE BEFORE TRIAL COMMENCED ……………………….. 7

III. TRIAL COURT DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO GRANT MISTRIAL AS TO THE PUNISHMENT PHASE ONLY ……………………………………. 8

IV. EMERGENCY RELIEF IS NEEDED……. ………………………………………… 9 Prayer……………………………………………….…………………...……………………….. 9 Certification…………………………………………………………………………………..….10 Certificate of Service…………………………………………………………………………….10 Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………….…. 11

Page 3 of 11

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) …………… 5,7

Ordunez v. Bean, 579 S.W.2d 911, 913 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) …………………………………. 6 Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) ………………………………………… 6 State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (op. on reh'g) ………...6 Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles v. Miller, 590 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) ………. 6 State ex rel. Skeen v. Tunnell, 768 S.W.2d 765, 767 (Tex.App.—Tyler, 1989)………………….6 State ex rel. Wade v. Mays, 689 S.W.2d 893, 898–899 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) ……………......6,7 State v. Evans, 843 S.W.2d 576 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) ………………………………………… 7 State v. Boyd, 202 S.W.3d 393 (Tex.App. – Dallas, 2006) ………………………………………7 State v. Garza, 774 S.W. 2d 724 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi, 1989 no pet.)……………………..7 State v. Bounhiza, 294 S.W.3d 780, 786 (Tex.App. – Austin, 2009)………………………….. 7,8 State v. Huseman, 17 S.W.3d 704 (Tex.App. – Amarillo, 1999)………………………….........7,8 State v. Doyle, 140 S.W. 3d 890 (Tex.App. – Corpus Christi, 2004) ……………………………7 State v. Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306, 310 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)……………………………………7,8 State v. Hight, 907 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Tex.Crim.App.1995)……………………………………..8

Statutes TEX. CRIM. PROC. ART. 44.29 ……………………………………………………………………8 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j) …….…………………………………………….…10

Page 4 of 11

STATEMENT OF CASE

Defendant, Andrew Pete, was indicted in the above entitled cause(s) and proceeded to a jury

trial on April 22, 2015 (with prior counsel) wherein he was found guilty in all three causes. The Defendants’ bonds were held insufficient and he was remanded to the custody of the Dallas County Sheriff where he remains at this time. During the punishment phase of the trial (prior to jury deliberation), the trial court granted a mistrial (See Trial Transcript, volume 7, p.131, attached as Exhibit “A”). In granting said mistrial, the Court declared the mistrial be limited to the punishment phase only. The Court also permitted counsel at the time to withdraw wherein the Defendant retained his current counsel. The State did not appeal.

Defendant is currently set for trial before a jury (punishment only) on January 4, 2016; however, the Court is attempting to proceed with jury selection this week [December 14 th - December 18th].

On December 4, 2015, Defendant filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Reinstate Bond (attached as Exhibit “B”), specifically contending the trial court did not have the authority to limit the Order granting mistrial to the punishment phase only and that the case i.e. bond status should be restored to its original posture and The Defendant released. The Court issued an Order denying same.

On December 14, 2015, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal (attached as Exhibit “C”) and this Writ follows.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The courts of appeals have mandamus jurisdiction over criminal law matters concurrent with the mandamus jurisdiction of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). Since this petition seeks an Order compelling the trial Court to release Mr. Pete, this Court properly has jurisdiction.

Page 5 of 11

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue for review is whether the trial court has authority to grant a mistrial as to the punishment phase only?

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW The court of appeals has mandamus jurisdiction in criminal law matters concurrent with the

court of criminal appeals. Dickens v. Court of Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial District of Texas, 727 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). To obtain relief through writ of mandamus, a relator must establish the following: 1) no other adequate remedy at law is available and 2) the act he seeks to compel is ministerial, rather than discretionary in nature. Id. at 548; See also Ordunez v. Bean, 579 S.W.2d 911, 913 (Tex.Crim.App.1979).

In the present case, Defendant can meet the first element of the Dickens requirement since he has no other adequate remedy at law to address his current unlawful confinement. The second element can be satisfied as well, as it relates to a wholly ministerial act. An act is ‘ministerial’ if it constitutes a duty clearly fixed and required by law and if the duty to be performed is described with such certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion or judgment. Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (op. on reh'g); and Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles v. Miller, 590 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). The court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial judge to perform an act where trial judge has a clear legal duty, ministerial in character, as distinguished from discretionary, to perform the act. State ex rel. Skeen v. Tunnell, 768 S.W.2d 765, 767 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1989, original proceeding); Flack, 728 S.W.2d at 789; and State ex

Page 6 of 11

rel. Wade v. Mays, 689 S.W.2d 893, 898–899 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). Here, the Appeals Court(s) have issued multiple opinions, holding the trial court lacks authority to limit an order granting mistrial to punishment only (See authority referenced below). This matter is not within the discretion of the trial court and a writ of mandamus shall be issued to compel the judge to return the case to its original posture.

II. A POST-VERDICT MISTRIAL RETURNS THE CASE TO ITS ORIGINAL POSTURE BEFORE TRIAL COMMENCED The Court of Criminal Appeals and Court of Appeals have addressed the effect of granting a

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

in Re: Andrew Pete, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

in Re: Andrew Pete (in Re: Andrew Pete) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Illinois v. Allen
397 U.S. 337 (Supreme Court, 1970)
State v. Stewart
282 S.W.3d 729 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
State Ex Rel. Curry v. Gray
726 S.W.2d 125 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Huseman v. State
17 S.W.3d 704 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Ordunez v. Bean
579 S.W.2d 911 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1979)
State Ex Rel. Wade v. Mays
689 S.W.2d 893 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1985)
State v. Bates
889 S.W.2d 306 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1994)
State v. Boyd
202 S.W.3d 393 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles v. Miller
590 S.W.2d 142 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1979)
State v. Hight
907 S.W.2d 845 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1995)
State Ex Rel. Skeen v. Tunnell
768 S.W.2d 765 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
State v. Bounhiza
294 S.W.3d 780 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
State v. Doyle
140 S.W.3d 890 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
State v. Evans
843 S.W.2d 576 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Smith v. Flack
728 S.W.2d 784 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
State v. Garza
774 S.W.2d 724 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Dickens v. Court of Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial District of Texas
727 S.W.2d 542 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)