in Re George Valentino Brent

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 5, 2012
Docket14-11-01114-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re George Valentino Brent (in Re George Valentino Brent) 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.

Bluebook
in Re George Valentino Brent, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-11-01114-CR ____________

IN RE GEORGE VALENTINO BRENT, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS County Court at Law No. 1 Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 140573

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 30, 2011, relator filed a pro se Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator requests this Court to stay any action pending a decision on his application for writ of habeas corpus filed in the trial court.

Relator was convicted of misdemeanor assault-family violence and sentenced to sixty days in county jail, probated. Relator appealed and this court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Relator filed a petition for discretionary review that was refused by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and on November 1, 2011, our mandate issued. Relator seeks a stay “on any actions imposed by mandate.”

Relator asserts that he has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court and seeks a stay until the trial court rules on his application. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072. To be entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator 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. 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). Relator has not shown the remedy at law provided by article 11.072 is inadequate to redress his alleged harm.

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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

Related

State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Texarkana
236 S.W.3d 207 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re George Valentino Brent, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-george-valentino-brent-texapp-2012.