in Re: Juan Suarez

Opinion

ACCEPTED

05-18-00191-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

3/26/2018 3:53 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

No. 05-18-00191-CV

No. 05-18-00192-CV

No. 05-18-00193-CV FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 3/26/2018 3:53:09 PM AT DALLAS LISA MATZ Clerk

________________________

IN RE JUAN SUAREZ,

Relator

HON. STEPHANIE N. MITCHELL, Respondent

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Real Party in Interest

________________________

Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas

Cause Nos. F12-53672-U, F12-54454-U, F12-54455-U

________________________

STATE’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

________________________

Counsel of Record:

FAITH JOHNSON RICARDO VELA, JR. Criminal District Attorney Assistant District Attorney Dallas County, Texas State Bar No. 24072800 Frank Crowley Court Building 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399

(214) 653-3625 (Phone)

(214) 653-3643 (Fax)

ricardo.vela@dallascounty.org

Attorneys for the State of Texas

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL Relator: JUAN SUAREZ, PRO SE

TDCJ# 01846207

McConnell Unit

3001 S. Emily Dr.

Beeville, Texas 78102

Respondent: HON. STEPHANIE N. MITCHELL , PRESIDING JUDGE

291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas 133 North Riverfront Boulevard LB-34

Dallas, Texas 75207

Real Party in Interest: THE STATE OF TEXAS

Represented by: Hon. Faith Johnson, Criminal District Attorney Ricardo Vela, Jr., Assistant Criminal District Attorney

Dallas County District Attorney’s Office 133 North Riverfront Boulevard LB-19

Dallas, Texas 75207

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .............................................................. ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................. iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................................... 1 ISSUES PRESENTED ....................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 2

Response to Issue One: Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal and therefore is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. ............................................................ 2 Response to Issue Two: Because Relator has received the relief he seeks via mandamus, this issue is moot. .......................................................................................... 3 PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 5

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COMPLIANCE.................................................................. 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................... 6 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 7

Appendix I .......................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix II....................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix III ..................................................................................................................... 19

iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Baluch v. Miller, 774 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, orig. proceeding) ...................................... 5

Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding)................ 4

Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) .............................................................. 5

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1992) .............................................................................................. 4

Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009) .............................................................................................. 3

In re Hill, No. 05-15-01478-CV, 2016 WL 55557 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 5, 2016, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) ..................................................................................................... 1

In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) .............................................................. 5

In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) .............................................................. 3

In re Rowe, No. 05-15-00159-CV, 2015 WL 1063111 (Tex. App.—Dallas, Mar. 11, 2015, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) ..................................................................................................... 5

In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding) ......................................... 2

In re Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) .............................................................. 3

Johnson v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Waco, 280 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ......................................................................... 3

iv

Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding) ........................................ 4

State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding) .............................................................. 5

State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding) ........................................... 4

Womack v. Berry, 291 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. 1956) .............................................................................................. 5

Statutes Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.014 (West 2010).................................................................... 2

v

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

The State of Texas, Real Party in Interest, submits this response to Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Relator judicially confessed and pled guilty to three sexual assault of child

felony offenses. Appendix I.1 On March 18, 2013, Relator was sentenced to 25 years’ incarceration in each cause to run concurrently; in cause F12-54454-U, the trial court imposed a $2000 fine. Appendix I. The trial court incorporated into each judgment orders to withdraw funds from Relator’s Inmate Trust Account. Appendix I, II. Four years later, Relator filed with the trial court a Motion to Request the Trial Court Rescind Three Orders to Withdrawal Funds from the Inmate’s Trust Fund, and Order the Return of any Funds Withdrawn. Petition Exhibit D. Relator submitted this instant petition for a writ of mandamus on February 21, 2018. Subsequently, the trial court considered and denied Relator’s motion. Appendix III.

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Whether Relator has established that he has no adequate remedy at law, entitling him to mandamus relief.

2. Whether this Court should issue a writ of mandamus to compel

Respondent to rule on Relator’s disposed motion.

1The State incorporates additional documents in its response to adequately support the record. See In re Hill, No. 05-15-01478-CV, 2016 WL 55557, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 5, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

ARGUMENT

Response to Issue One: Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal and therefore is not entitled to a writ of mandamus.

Relator seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his

motion requesting that the trial court rescind its orders to withdraw funds from his Inmate Trust Fund because they violate his due process rights. Relator fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief.

To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). The withdrawal orders issued by a trial court allow the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to withdraw money from Relator’s trust account for payment to the Dallas County district clerk for the amounts specified by the court orders. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.014(e), (f)(5) (West 2010). Orders expressly purported to be entered pursuant to section 501.014(e) of the Government Code are civil in nature. Johnson v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Waco, 280 S.W.3d 866, 872–75 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The proper method for seeking appellate review of an order of withdrawal of funds from an inmate trust account is by appeal of the order. Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Tex. 2009). Mandamus relief is proper only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no

3

adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

Relator fails to establish that he has no adequate remedy at law. Because Relator challenges the trial court’s three orders to withdraw funds, direct appeal of these orders is appropriate. See Harrell, 286 S.W.3d at 321 (stating “[A]ppellate review should be by appeal, as in analogous civil post-judgment enforcement actions.”). Any failure on Relator’s part to comply with the rules of civil procedure and properly file a notice of appeal is not a sufficient excuse to justify issuance of mandamus. See In re Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, Relator has failed to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief and his petition should be denied.

Response to Issue Two: Because Relator has received the relief he seeks via mandamus, this issue is moot.

Relator argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not ruling on his

motion and requests this Court to compel Respondent to rule on his motion. Relator’s petition is moot.

An act is ministerial if the relator has a “clear right to the relief sought.” Id.;

State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding). The law must clearly spell out the duty to be performed by the lower court with such certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion or judgment. See Hill, 34 S.W.3d at 928. When a motion is properly filed and pending

4

before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is a ministerial act. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (citing Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1992)). In such circumstances, a trial court must consider and rule upon the motion within what, when all the surrounding circumstances are taken into account, constitutes a reasonable time. See Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding) (determining mandamus would issue when a lower court had not acted “within a reasonable time”). A refusal to rule within a reasonable time would frustrate that process and, moreover, would constitute a denial of due course of law. Baluch v. Miller, 774 S.W.2d 299, 301–02 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, orig. proceeding). Therefore, mandamus is appropriate to compel a trial court to make a ruling within a reasonable time. Womack v. Berry, 291 S.W.2d 677, 682 (Tex. 1956).

However, a court should not issue mandamus if it would be useless or unavailing. Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding). A case may be dismissed as moot at any stage of the proceedings. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings. Id.; State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding) (stating that for controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought).

5

A justiciable controversy no longer exists with respect to Relator’s motion.

Respondent’s denial of Relator’s motion granted the relief he seeks on mandamus. See In re Rowe, No. 05-15-00159-CV, 2015 WL 1063111, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas, Mar. 11, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, Relator’s petition is moot and should be denied.

PRAYER

The State of Texas, Real Party in Interest, submits that this Court should deny

Relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

Respectfully submitted,

FAITH JOHNSON /s/ Ricardo Vela, Jr.________ Criminal District Attorney RICARDO VELA, JR.

Dallas County, Texas Assistant District Attorney State Bar Number 24072800 Frank

133 Crowley Building

N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399

(214) 653-3625 (phone)

(214) 653-3643 (fax)

ricardo.vela@dallascounty.org

6

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COMPLIANCE I, Ricardo Vela, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, hereby certify that the

foregoing response is 916 words in length according to Microsoft Word, which was used to prepare the response.

/s/ Ricardo Vela, Jr.________ RICARDO VELA, JR.

Assistant District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Ricardo Vela, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing response has been served on Relator pro see via U.S. Mail to Juan Suarez, TDCJ# 01846207, McConnell Unit, 3001 S. Emily Drive, Beeville, Texas 78102, on March 26, 2018.

/s/ Ricardo Vela, Jr.________ RICARDO VELA, JR.

Assistant District Attorney

7

APPENDIX

8

Appendix I

15

Appendix II

19

Appendix III