In Re Stanley Hardin v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00321-CR

__________________

IN RE STANLEY HARDIN

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

221st District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 26-03-04425-CR

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Stanley Hardin filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. He seeks to compel the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the denial of bail. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 11d(a)(2), (b)(2), (d), (e). Relator is charged in cause number 26-03- 04425-CR with the offense of capital murder, multiple persons.

According to Relator, he was arrested on March 16, 2026. He appeared at a probable cause hearing before a magistrate the following day, and his defense attorney, Raphael Ortega, was present, via Zoom, at the proceeding. According to Relator, and the affidavit from Mr. Ortega which is attached in the Appendix to the Petition for Mandamus, Ortega represented every accused on the docket that day,

2

presented no evidence at the probable cause hearing, and the defense attorney never spoke with Relator.

According to the transcript attached in the Appendix to Relator’s Petition, the State was asked by the Magistrate to state the probable cause and the State responded:

[A 9-1-1] call was placed by the defendant’s wife stating that her husband, Stanley Hardin, was threatening to kill her. Dispatch noted they could hear screaming and then multiple gunshots. They arrived [and] located two females without signs of life. One was his wife. The other appeared to have been his mother-in-law. Uh, both were each to have, uh, both []observed to have suffered, uh, gunshot wounds, multiple apparent gunshot wounds, and were pronounced dead on the scene. They were advised that a male in a blue shirt was fleeing the area. Um, they saw a male enter a vehicle operated by a subject, um, that subject informed deputies that the male entered . . . his vehicle was his father, father evidently surrendered. At the end [he] was detained.

Officers observed that, um, his appearance was consistent with what they observed on security footage. It looks like the two had been, uh, him and his wife had been separated. She moved in with her mother approximately one month prior. The state is requesting that he be held without bond under sections 11[d]. Due to the nature of the offense, there are also two deceased victims and also concern for danger to the community. Officers had to set up a perimeter in this situation, and drones were deployed by DPS to try to go find him.

Relator argues that the State presented no evidence at the probable cause hearing but argued at the probable cause hearing that Hardin should be held without bail pursuant to Article I, section 11d of the Texas Constitution. The Magistrate ordered that Hardin would be held without bond. Hardin did not file an application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus after the magistrate’s ruling which he could have

3

filed with the trial court. See Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.08. It is not clear from the record whether Hardin filed a Motion to Set Bond, but the parties appeared before the trial court for a bond hearing on June 9, 2026.

At the bond hearing before the trial court, Hardin’s appointed attorney (not Mr. Ortega) argued that the probable cause hearing before the magistrate was not a hearing for purposes of Article I, section 11d, and no findings were made by the magistrate to support the denial of bail. The State argued that the hearing before the magistrate satisfied the hearing requirement of section 11d, that the magistrate had all the arrest information in the file, and the reading of probable cause was sufficient, and to be entitled to another hearing, Hardin must file an application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated, “I’m holding him at no bond.”

“Mandamus relief may be granted if a relator shows that: (1) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial, and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law.” In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). “The ministerial-act requirement is satisfied if the relator can show a clear right to the relief sought.” In re State ex. rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “A clear right to relief is shown when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or case law sources), and clearly controlling legal principles.” Id.

4

(internal quotation omitted). Although mandamus is often an inappropriate vehicle to resolve an issue of first impression, it is not necessarily dispositive of the ministerial act requirement if the judicial action is clearly contrary to well-settled law. State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194, 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 928 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

Regarding the requirement of an adequate remedy at law, a relator can show that no adequate legal remedy exists at law if the remedy is so uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient, inappropriate, or ineffective as to be deemed inadequate. McCann, 422 S.W.3d at 704. Hardin contends in his Petition for Mandamus that filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus would be a futile act because the trial court has already decided that the hearing before the magistrate satisfied the hearing required in Article I, section 11d, and he would remain incarcerated while he pursues an accelerated appeal.

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is generally an adequate remedy that will preclude mandamus relief. In re Piper, 105 S.W.3d 107, 109 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); see Banales v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 93 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Hardin could have filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus after the initial bond hearing, and had he done so his appeal could have already been before this Court. He instead elected to pursue

5

a legal strategy that did not include an accelerated appeal. Hardin could even now seek habeas corpus relief and appeal if the trial court denies relief. On this record, we conclude Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 18, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 19, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.