In Re Anthony Washington v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 5, 2024
• Docket: 06-24-00103-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00103-CR

IN RE ANTHONY WASHINGTON

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION

Anthony Washington, proceeding pro se, has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief.

Washington claims he filed a motion for a speedy trial1 and a request for final disposition in the

trial court. Washington asks us to compel the Honorable John Tidwell, presiding judge of the

202nd Judicial District Court of Bowie County, Texas, to act upon those motions.2 Because we

find that Washington (1) failed to attach an appendix of necessary documents that are required

by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and (2) failed to provide a record sufficient to entitle

him to his requested relief, we deny the requested relief.

1. Standard of Review

In a criminal case, “[m]andamus relief may be granted if a relator shows that: (1) the act

sought to be compelled is purely ministerial, and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law.” In re

McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). To meet the burden

to establish entitlement to mandamus relief, a relator is required to show that the trial court failed

to complete a ministerial act. See In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). An act is considered ministerial “if the relator can show . . . a

clear right to the relief sought.” Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)

(orig. proceeding) (quoting State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Appeals at Texarkana,

236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding.)). A clear right to the requested

1 See U.S. CONST. amend. VI; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 10. 2 In the petition’s prayer, Washington asks this Court to order the trial court to “remove the detainers” on him. Because of the absence of any supporting documentation “material to [Washington’s] claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding,” this Court is unaware of any detainer. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1).

2 relief is shown when the facts and circumstances require “but one rational decision ‘under

unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or case law sources), and

clearly controlling legal principles.’” In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 (quoting

Bowen, 343 S.W.3d at 810). “Mandamus is not available to compel a discretionary act as

distinguished from a ministerial act.” State ex rel. Holmes v. Denson, 671 S.W.2d 896, 899

(Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (orig. proceeding).

2. Analysis

After reviewing the record, we conclude that Washington has failed to comply with Rule

52.7(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which states that a relator must file with

his petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim

for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1).

Washington argues in his petition that the trial court has not acted upon Washington’s motion for

a speedy trial or request for a final disposition.3 However, he attached no documents to his

petition. Therefore, Washington fails to provide a complete record as required by Rule

52.7(a)(1), and the petition is insufficient to establish that the trial court abused its discretion.

See In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding)

(“Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural

rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete

and adequate record.” (footnote omitted)).

3 Washington alleges in his petition that those documents were filed with the trial court on August 8, 2017, and June 3, 2019, respectively.

3 For these reasons, we deny Washington’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 4, 2024 Date Decided: June 5, 2024

Do Not Publish