In Re Edward J. Manel v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Edward J. Manel v. the State of Texas (In Re Edward J. Manel v. the State of Texas) 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
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-23-00228-CR __________________
IN RE EDWARD J. MANEL
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22-41181 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Edward J. Manel filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel
the trial court to “apply texas law Article 17.151 texas code of criminal procedure to
the charge of Burglary of Habitation”. We deny mandamus relief. 1
1 Relator failed to support his mandamus petition with an appendix containing “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Relator additionally failed to certify that he served a copy of the mandamus petition on the Respondent and the Real Party in Interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. Here, we exercise our discretion under Rule 2, to look beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
1 “Mandamus 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
obtain relief on a mandamus petition, the petitioner must show that he has a clear
legal right to the act that he is seeking to compel. Id.
Manel states that he was arrested for burglary of a habitation on November 6,
2022, and “went to court for announcement plea and put a not guilty plea” on a date
more than 90 days after he was arrested. Other than this bare statement, Manel
provides no information about what transpired in the trial court. Manel has not
shown that he asked the trial court to release him either on personal bond or by
reducing the amount of bail required. See generally Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. Ann. art.
17.151. Manel has not shown that he filed a motion to reduce bail or applied for a
pre-trial writ of habeas corpus, and he presents no argument or authority to support
imposing a ministerial duty on the trial court when the detained person has not
requested that he be released because of delay. See id. Accordingly, we deny the
petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM Submitted on July 25, 2023 Opinion Delivered July 26, 2023 Do Not Publish
Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ. 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Edward J. Manel v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-edward-j-manel-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.