in Re Kevin Lee Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 20, 2014
• Docket: 09-14-00290-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-14-00290-CR _________________

IN RE KEVIN LEE WILLIAMS

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 23, 2014, Williams filed a pro se request with the trial court to

obtain free copies of his trial transcripts and records from the trial court, alleging

that he needs the records to prepare a “viable and cohesive writ application.” On

May 6, 2014, the trial court denied Williams’ request for free copies of the records

of his trial.1

1 Kevin Lee Williams pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and a jury assessed punishment. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for thirty years. Williams appealed his conviction, and this Court affirmed the judgment. See Williams v. State, No. 09-10-00219-CR, 2011 WL 6229164 (Tex. App.— Beaumont, Dec. 14, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication). The mandate from this Court was issued on February 7, 2012. 1 On June 30, 2014, Williams filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this

Court, and a Supplement thereto on July 31, 2014, in which he seeks to compel the

Judge of the 435th District Court of Montgomery County to rule on his

“Traverse/Rebuttal,” which Williams contends he filed on May 15, 2014, as a

response to the State’s reply to his request for free copies. There is no active

habeas proceeding; accordingly, this Court has mandamus jurisdiction. See Padieu

v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117-18 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013).

After reviewing the record before us, and the Original and Supplemental

Mandamus Petitions, we conclude that the relator has not shown that he has a clear

and indisputable right to the relief he requested from the trial court. See State ex

rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207,

210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Williams cites no authority that required a trial court

to consider and issue a written order on a reply filed by a movant after the trial

court denied his motion. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 19, 2014 Opinion Delivered August 20, 2014 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.