in Re Larece Satese Wyatt

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 27, 2019
Docket10-19-00368-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Larece Satese Wyatt (in Re Larece Satese Wyatt) 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 Larece Satese Wyatt, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00368-CV

IN RE LARECE SATESE WYATT

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Larece Satese Wyatt has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order

from this Court directing the Honorable Matt Johnson of the 54th Judicial District Court

to grant Wyatt’s motion that sought relief from being forced to pay court-appointed

attorney’s fees.1 Wyatt asserts that the funds are being improperly deducted from his

inmate account because he was previously determined to be indigent.

1 The petition for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. It also lacks a proper proof of service; a copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties to the proceeding and must contain proof of service. Id. at 9.5. Because of our disposition and to expedite it, however, we will implement Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and suspend these rules in this proceeding. Id. at 2. Mandamus relief will be granted only when the record establishes (1) a clear abuse

of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and

adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840-41 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding); see In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 207

(Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). Wyatt has an adequate remedy at law because the proper

method to attack the trial court’s order is through a direct appeal, not by way of a petition

for writ of mandamus. See Ex parte Knight, 401 S.W.3d 60, 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig.

proceeding); see also Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 (Tex. 2009).

Accordingly, we deny Wyatt’s petition for writ of mandamus.

REX D. DAVIS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Mandamus denied Opinion delivered and filed November 27, 2019 [OT06]

In re Wyatt Page 2

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

Related

Harrell v. State
286 S.W.3d 315 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
In Re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P.
290 S.W.3d 204 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Knight, Ex Parte Nancy Gail
401 S.W.3d 60 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Larece Satese Wyatt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-larece-satese-wyatt-texapp-2019.