in Re Earl King
This text of in Re Earl King (in Re Earl King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-17-00171-CR
IN RE EARL KING
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION
Earl King has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks this Court to
order the 202nd Judicial District Court of Bowie County to rule on a “Motion For Dismissal” of
trial court cause number 13F0063, filed on June 2, 2017. We deny King’s petition for writ of
mandamus.
It is King’s burden to properly request and show his entitlement to mandamus relief. See
Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding)
(per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the
extraordinary relief he seeks.”). With respect to his request, King must show that he has no adequate
remedy at law to redress his alleged harm and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not
involving a discretionary or judicial decision. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of
Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
While the trial court is required to consider all properly filed motions before it, In re Shaw, 175
S.W.3d 901, 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding), a relator seeking a writ of mandamus
must file with this Court a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to his claim for
relief (mandamus record). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a).
King did not file a mandamus record in this Court. Consequently, we may not evaluate the
merits of King’s request for mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7; Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426.
2 We deny King’s petition for writ of mandamus.
Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: September 14, 2017 Date Decided: September 15, 2017 Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Earl King, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-earl-king-texapp-2017.