Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 07-04-2021

Case Style:

In re Nkrumah Lumumba Valier

Case Number: 01-21-00219-CR

Judge: PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Hightower, and Rivas-Molloy.

Court: Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney: The Honorable Kim K Ogg
Daniel C. McCrory

Defendant's Attorney:

Houston, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory


Houston, Texas - Criminal defense attorney represented Nkrumah Lumumba Valier with a Mandamus hearing.

First, we note that Relator's petition does not comply with the requirements
enumerated in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4;
52.3(a)–(g), (j), (k); see also TEX. R. APP. P 52.7.
Second, Relator has not shown he is entitled to relief. To obtain mandamus
relief, Relator must show (1) the trial court had a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act, (2) Relator made demand for performance, and (3) the trial court
refused. O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992)
(orig. proceeding). Relator does not complain of any act or omission by the trial
court, and there is no showing that the trial court refused to rule on any motion or
request for the relief Relator seeks in this Court.
Third, to the extent Relator seeks mandamus relief against the Clerk of the
Court, we lack jurisdiction to act. This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of
mandamus against “a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county,
or county court in the court of appeals district.” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b)(1).
2 The underlying case is State v. Valier, Cause No. 1030025, pending in the 184th
District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Abigail Anastasio
3 Relator’s direct appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on May 4, 2021.
4 A corrective letter was sent to Relator explaining that he had not been assigned
counsel and was still pro se. The corrective letter is attached to relator’s petition
for writ of mandamus.3
In addition, this Court may issue a writ of mandamus as necessary to enforce its
jurisdiction. Id. § 22.221(a). Neither circumstance is present here.

Outcome: We deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. All pending motions are
denied as moot.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case