In Re Ja'Ren L. Battles v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 19, 2023
• Docket: 09-23-00219-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00219-CR __________________

IN RE JA’REN L. BATTLES

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F23-0217 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator Ja’Ren L.

Battles asks this Court to compel the trial court to hold an examining

trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 16.01 (“The accused in any

felony case shall have the right to an examining trial before indictment

in the county having jurisdiction of the offense[.]”). Because Battles failed

to include an appendix to his petition containing the records required to

1 establish his petition has merit, he has not shown that an abuse of

discretion occurred. Accordingly, the petition is denied. 1

In a criminal case, to establish a right to mandamus relief a relator

must show that no adequate remedy at law exists to redress the alleged

harm and that he is seeking to compel a ministerial act, one that doesn’t

involve a discretionary or judicial decision. See In re 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). Even though Battles claims

the trial court didn’t provide him with an examining trial, he doesn’t

explain that he ever filed a motion with the trial court in which he raised

that request. “If a party properly files a motion with the trial court in a

criminal case, the court has a ministerial duty to rule on the motion

within a reasonable time after the motion has been submitted to the court

for a ruling or after the party has requested a ruling.” In re Gomez, 602

S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding).

1Relator 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. Relying on Rule 2, however, we look past that deficiency to reach an expeditious result. See id. 2. 2 To prevail on a petition for mandamus, a relator must show that he

filed a motion in the trial court requesting the relief addressed in the

petition for mandamus. The relator must also show that he brought his

motion to the trial court’s attention for the purpose of having the trial

court rule on his motion, and he must demonstrate the trial court failed

to rule on his motion within a reasonable time. Id.

When filing a petition in the court of appeals, the appendix the

relator must file with his petition is required to contain a sworn or

certified copy of the trial court’s order that serves as the basis of the

relator’s complaint, along with the other documents in the record that are

relevant to the order the relator is complaining about in his petition. See

Tex. R. App P. 52.3(k)(1). The petition must be accompanied by a

certification, signed by the relator, which states the relator has reviewed

the petition and every factual statement in the petition is supported by

competent evidence in the appendix or the record. See id. 52.3(j). Battles’

petition is not accompanied by an appendix or a certification that

complies with Rule 52.3(k)(1).

3 Battles claims he has been detained in custody without an

examining trial since he was arrested on March 18, 2023. Yet Battles

fails to mention whether he has been indicted. The petition for

mandamus is silent about whether Battles is represented by counsel in

the trial court. Importantly and as already mentioned, Battles’ petition

doesn’t show that he filed a motion in the trial court asking the trial court

to conduct an examining trial. Instead, Battles only says that he’s not

had one.

In Battles’ prayer, Battles cites section 132.001 of the Civil Practice

and Remedies Code and declares the information in his petition “is true

and correct.” Even though section 132.001 allows Battles to file a petition

using an unsworn declaration in lieu of an affidavit, Battles’ unsworn

declaration doesn’t comply with section 132.001, as he didn’t include his

date of birth, and he also didn’t include this statement: “I declare under

penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” See Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001(e).

4 For all these reasons, Battles’ petition fails to establish that he is

entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny his petition seeking

the writ. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 18, 2023 Opinion Delivered July 19, 2023 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.