In Re Shawn Anthony Vellier v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 03-25-00421-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00421-CV

In re Shawn Anthony Vellier

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Shawn Anthony Vellier has filed a pro se application for pretrial writ of habeas

corpus claiming that his constitutional rights have been violated because he has been denied bail

after being incarcerated for more than 90 days. Vellier requests that this Court order him

released on a personal recognizance bond.

This Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus is limited to

those cases in which a person’s liberty is restrained because the person has violated an order,

judgment, or decree entered in a civil case. Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(d). Original jurisdiction

to grant a pretrial writ of habeas corpus is vested in the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district

court, the county courts, or a judge of those courts. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.05; see

also id. art. 11.08 (person confined after indictment of felony “may apply to the judge of the

court in which he is indicted”); Fairchild v. State, Nos. 03-20-00354—00357-CR, 2020 WL

5608480, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 18, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication) (noting that reviewing courts can consider on appeal complaints challenging ruling

denying application for writ of habeas corpus requesting release on persona bond); In re Wood, No. 03-16-00651-CV, 2016 WL 6575240, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 2, 2016, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (noting that for criminal matters, “our habeas corpus jurisdiction is

appellate only”).

In his application, Vellier also asserts that he filed a pro se application for writ of

habeas corpus with the trial court but that the application has not been ruled on or heard, and he

attached a copy of the prior application indicating that it was filed in the trial court clerk’s office

on April 14, 2025. Even construing the application filed here as also requesting mandamus relief

compelling the trial court to rule on the earlier application, we would be unable to grant the relief

requested. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1-.11 (governing original proceedings in courts of appeals);

see also Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (explaining that

appellate courts look to substance of filing, not its title, to determine relief sought).

Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy. In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.,

235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). The “[r]elator bears the burden to properly

request and show entitlement to mandamus relief.” In re Carrington, 438 S.W.3d 867, 868 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 2014, orig. proceeding); see Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (noting that pro se petitioner for writ of mandamus

“must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks”). In this regard, the relator must

provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief.

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (requiring

relator to file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the

relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”), .3(k) (specifying

required contents for appendix). To establish an abuse of discretion for failure to rule, relator

must show that: (1) the trial court had a legal duty to rule on his motion, (2) he made a demand

2 for the trial court to rule, and (3) the trial court failed or refused to rule within a reasonable time.

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

Although Vellier included a copy of his habeas application that he sent to the trial

court, nothing in that application or his filing with this Court indicates that he brought his

application to the attention of the trial court or otherwise notified the trial court of the need to

rule upon his application. See In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008,

orig. proceeding) (observing that mandamus record failed to establish that relator requested

ruling or called motion to trial court’s attention and that “mere filing of a motion with a trial

court clerk does not equate to a request that the trial court rule on the motion”); see also In re

Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228 (noting that information known to trial court clerk “is not imputed to

the trial court” and that simply alleging that something was mailed to trial court clerk does not

prove that trial court received notice of filing). Unless it is shown that the trial court was made

aware of the need to act, we cannot say it failed to act, and the latter is a condition to obtaining

relief via mandamus. In re Smith, 279 S.W.3d 714, 715-16 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007,

orig. proceeding).

In any event, Vellier’s filing demonstrates that he would not have been entitled to

relief from the trial court because the trial court did not have a legal duty to rule on his

application. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228. The trial court clerk has confirmed that Vellier

is represented by counsel. If an accused is represented by counsel, the trial court is not required

to rule on pro se filings. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

Accordingly, Vellier cannot establish that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on

his pro se habeas application. See In re Napoleon, No. 04-09-00235-CR, 2009 WL 1411168, at

*1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 20, 2009, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not

3 designated for publication); see also In re West, 419 S.W.3d 312, 312-13 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

2009, orig. proceeding) (concluding that pro se petition for writ of mandamus relating to criminal

proceeding presented nothing for appellate court to review because defendant was represented

by counsel).

For these reasons, we dismiss Vellier’s application for writ of habeas corpus for

want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Karin Crump, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Theofanis, and Crump

Filed: June 20, 2025