in Re: Prince Brown

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 1, 2006
• Docket: 06-06-00017-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

6-96-028-CV Long Trusts v. Dowd

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-06-00017-CV

IN RE:

PRINCE BROWN

---

Original Mandamus Proceeding

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Prince Brown has filed with this Court a petition seeking mandamus relief from the Honorable Bonnie Leggat Hagan, Judge of the 71st Judicial District Court, Harrison County. Brown is currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Brown claims he was arrested and jailed for the offense of felon in possession of a firearm March 6, 2003, and that the State has failed to indict him for such charge. Brown states that on December 19, 2005, he filed with the trial court a motion to dismiss charges regarding his arrest for felon in possession of a firearm.

          In response, the State contends that Brown was convicted of the above-referenced delivery of controlled substance charges in March 2004; and that the criminal district attorney for Harrison County "rejected the charge of Felon in Possession of a Firearm for prosecution" May 12, 2004. The State goes on to say that Brown "invoked the jurisdiction of the 71st District Court, as a magistrate court" by moving for an examining trial in that court in March 2003. According to the State, an examining trial was had, and the district court, acting as a magistrate, made a finding of probable cause. Apparently, the charge of felon in possession of a firearm was never presented to a Harrison County grand jury, and the State "rejected" that charge in May 2004.

          Brown has presented this Court with nothing to establish conclusively that a) any charges or complaint is pending against him relating to a charge of felon in possession of a firearm, or b) there is any ministerial obligation on the district court's part which would entitle Brown to mandamus relief.

          Mandamus issues only when the mandamus 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. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or, in the absence of another statutory remedy, when the trial court fails to observe a mandatory statutory provision conferring a right or forbidding a particular action. Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985).

            Finding no basis in Brown's petition or in the record before us to support his requested relief, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                           Donald R. Ross

                                                                           Justice

Date Submitted:      January 31, 2006

Date Decided:         February 1, 2006