In Re Jason Paul Oehme v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 12, 2024
• Docket: 10-24-00369-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00369-CR

IN RE JASON PAUL OEHME

Original Proceeding

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 24-002456-CV-361

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel

Respondent, the Honorable Judge David Hilburn of the 361st District Court of Brazos

County, to vacate an order denying Relator’s pre-trial “Motion to Reduce Bond/Writ of

Habeas Corpus Seeking Bond Reduction” and to require Respondent to grant a personal

recognizance bond to Relator.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must demonstrate that (1) he has no

other adequate remedy at law, and (2) the act sought to be compelled is ministerial. In re

State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). To meet this burden, Rule 52.7(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires the relator to file with his

mandamus petition a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to his

claim for relief, as well as a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony

from the underlying proceeding or a statement that no testimony was adduced. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.7(a). “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.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). Among other procedural

deficiencies, Relator has failed to file a record or an appendix with his petition. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.7(a), 52.3(k). Though Relator has provided handwritten assertions of fact

that he has sworn are true and correct, he has not included a copy of his motion, a copy

of the order complained of, a transcript of the hearing on his motion, or any other relevant

documentation material to his claim for relief.

Additionally, the petition is missing the following: a list identifying parties and

counsel, a table of contents, an index of authorities, and a certificate of service

demonstrating service on Respondent and on the State as a real party in interest. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.5, 52.2, 52.3(a)-(c). Further, because Relator did not include a record or an

appendix, the petition is not supported by citations to competent evidence. See id. at R.

52.3(g), (h). Finally, though Relator includes a verification that the statements contained

in the petition for writ of mandamus are true and correct and within his personal

In re Jason Paul Oehme Page 2 knowledge, such verification does not comply with Rule 52.3(j) requiring certification

that “every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included

in the appendix or record.” Id. at R. 52.3(j).

Moreover, because we have not seen the motion, the trial court’s order, and the

hearing record, we cannot determine that the order is properly reviewable by mandamus.

Relator refers to his motion as both a “motion to reduce bond” and a “writ of habeas

corpus seeking bond reduction.” To the extent Relator seeks to challenge the trial court’s

denial of a habeas application requesting a bond reduction on the merits of his claim,

Relator cannot do so through a writ of mandamus. The appropriate procedural avenue

for such a challenge is through a direct appeal. See Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Because Relator has failed to file the record required by Rule 52.7(a) and failed to

demonstrate his entitlement to the relief requested, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a); In re Parmer, No. 14-08-00856-CV, 2008 Tex. App.

LEXIS 7206, 2008 WL 4367295, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 25, 2008,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Cruz, 13-24-00469-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 7031, 2024

WL 4363345, at *3-4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi—Edinburg Sept. 30, 2024, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

In re Jason Paul Oehme Page 3 STEVE SMITH Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith (Chief Justice Gray concurs) Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed December 12, 2024 Do not publish [OT06]

In re Jason Paul Oehme Page 4