In Re Nathaniel T. Richardson v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion issued July 17, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Based on information provided by relator, he seeks “the same crucial relief” in this

mandamus proceeding as he does in the pending appeal. Thus, relator has an

appellate remedy rendering mandamus inappropriate. See Walker v. Packer, 827

S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (quoting State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 484 (Tex.

1984) and holding mandamus unavailable if relator has “a clear and adequate

remedy at law, such as a normal appeal”). Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any further issues relating to the underlying case can

be resolved in relator’s appeal. We also dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Morgan.

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-25-00222-CR ——————————— IN RE NATHANIEL RICHARDSON, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, requesting that we direct the trial court judge to rule on several motions related to his underlying case.1 Relator has an appeal pending in this Court arising from the same trial court case that is the subject of this petition for writ of mandamus. See Ex parte Richardson, No. 01-25-00203-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (pending). 1 The underlying case is Ex parte Nathaniel Richardson, cause number 967408B, pending in the 183rd District Court of Harris County, the Honorable Lance Long presiding.