Opinion
13-23-00273-CR
07-20-2023
IN RE MICHELLE CALK
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2 (b).
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case."); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relator Michelle Calk filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which she asserts that the trial court did not comply with its ministerial duty to release a cash bond. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 17.02.
In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by the State of Texas, acting by and through Constance Filley Johnson, the Criminal District Attorney for Victoria County, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.