In Re Roderic Demond James v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 26, 2023
• Docket: 09-23-00229-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00229-CR __________________

IN RE RODERIC DEMOND JAMES

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21-38216 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, Roderic Demond James

asks that the Court order the trial court to rule on his Motion to Dismiss

for Failure to Provide a Speedy Trial. James filed the pro se motion to

dismiss on June 21, 2023. We deny the petition because James has not

shown whether the trial court is aware James filed the motion, and even

if the trial court is aware of the motion, James has failed to establish that

the trial court refused to rule within a reasonable time.

1 .

Before we address the substance of James’s petition, we briefly

address why we decided to address James’s pro se petition when the

appendix he filed doesn’t include an order demonstrating the trial court

allowed James’s attorney to withdraw and doesn’t show that the trial

court agreed to permit James to represent himself. We do so because the

appendix includes a letter that James sent to the district clerk, in which

James stated:

I’m sending this waiver to counsel, so that I can represent myself in the Criminal District Court. Yes[,] I understand and I’m voluntarily waiving my right to be represented by a ‘court appointed lawyer.’ I now desire to proceed ‘pro se.’ 1

The letter was file-marked by the district clerk in December 2022. Based

on James’s request in the letter, and because it has been on file since

December, we will assume for the purpose of James’s petition that the

trial court has acted on his request, warned him of the dangers of

representing himself, and allowed his court-appointed attorney to

withdraw.

1The quotation has been altered from the original text of James’s

letter, as the quoted language appears in capital letters. 2 Turning to the merits of James’s petition, to determine whether

mandamus relief is appropriate in a criminal case, the relator must

establish two things: (1) “he must show that he does not have an adequate

remedy at law to address his alleged harm[;]” and (2) “he must show that

what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary

or judicial decision.” State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of

Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig.

proceeding). To establish that a trial court committed an abuse of

discretion by failing to rule on a motion, the relator must establish the

trial court had a duty to perform a non-discretionary act, the relator

demanded that the court perform its duty, and the court refused to rule

within a reasonable time. 2

Whether a reasonable period has lapsed depends on the

circumstances of the case. 3 Those circumstances may include whether the

trial court knew of the motion, whether the trial court overtly refused to

act, the state of the trial court’s docket, and whether there were other

2O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992)

(orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). 3Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228-29.

3 judicial and administrative matters on the docket that, in the trial court’s

discretion, the court determined it needed to address first. 4 We also

consider that a trial court has an inherent right in the exercise of its

sound discretion to control the matters on the court’s docket. 5

Without evidence to establish that the trial court expressly refused

to entertain James’s pro se motion, the lapse of a few weeks cannot be

considered unreasonable given the record James has provided the Court

to support his petition. As stated above, James failed to establish he

brought his motion to the trial court’s attention, and he failed to establish

the trial court refused to rule on it within a reasonable period of time.

For the reasons explained above, the petition is denied. 6

PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 25, 2023 Opinion Delivered July 26, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

4In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). 5See Villareal v. San Antonio Truck & Equip., 994 S.W.2d 628, 631

(Tex. 1999); In re Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). 6Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).