in Re Michael Christopher Moore

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 9, 2021
Docket14-21-00578-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Michael Christopher Moore (in Re Michael Christopher Moore) 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 Michael Christopher Moore, (Tex. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed November 9, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00578-CR

IN RE MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER MOORE, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 21-CR-2272

MEMORANDUM MAJORITY OPINION

On October 14, 2021, relator Michael Christopher Moore filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Kerry Neves, presiding judge of the 10th District Court of Galveston County, to grant relator an examining trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 16.01. In his petition, relator asserts he requested an examining trial on July 14, 2021, prior to the issuance of an indictment; however, petitioner states that the “Grand Jury for the County of Galveston filed said indictment regarding case number 21-CR 2272, on August 10, 2021 . . . .” Relator contends this violated his constitutional rights. A defendant’s right to an examining trial is ended by the return of an indictment. State ex rel. Holmes v. Salinas, 784 S.W.2d 421, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); see also In re Richardson, No. 14-04-00713, 2004 WL 1797589, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 12, 2004, orig. proceeding). “Due process considerations are not implicated since the primary purpose for the examining trial, a determination of probable cause, is at least as timely accomplished by presenting evidence directly to the grand jury.” Salinas, 784 S.W.2d at 427.

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

/s/ Kevin Jewell Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson (Spain, J., dissenting). Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Holmes v. Salinas
784 S.W.2d 421 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Michael Christopher Moore, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michael-christopher-moore-texapp-2021.