Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 03-09-2020
Case Style:
In re Todd O'Keith Smith
Case Number: 06-20-00008-CR
Judge: Josh R. Morriss, III
Court: Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Plaintiff's Attorney: Not given
Defendant's Attorney:
Need help finding a lawyer for representation for a petition for writ of mandamus in Texas?
Call 918-582-6422. It's Free.
Description:
MoreLaw Suites
Virtual Offices of Solo Practice Lawyer Starting at $200 a Month
Office With MoreLaw Suites and Reduce Your Overhead
918-582-3993 - Info@MoreLaw.com
Todd O’Keith Smith has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial
judge of the 276th Judicial District Court of Marion County, Texas, to rule on his motion for
judgment nunc pro tunc, which seeks removal of a deadly-weapon finding contained in the
judgment convicting Smith of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. We deny Smith’s petition
for writ of mandamus because he failed to provide us with a record to support his entitlement to
mandamus relief.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show (1) that he has no adequate remedy
at law and (2) that the action he seeks to compel is ministerial, not one 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). The relator must also provide this
Court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827
S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197,
198–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Before
mandamus may issue, the relator must show that the trial court had a legal duty to perform a
ministerial act, was asked to do so, and failed or refused to act. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708,
710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding); see also In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (“Showing that a motion was filed with the court
clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention or presented
to the trial court with a request for a ruling.”).
3
Smith has filed an insufficient record with this Court since it does not contain the judgment
against him or any evidence showing that his motions and requests were presented to the trial
court. Thus, Smith has failed to provide this Court with a record sufficient to establish that he is
entitled to mandamus relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837.
Outcome: We deny Smith’s petition for writ of mandamus.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: