Opinion
No. 04-04-00260-CV
Delivered and Filed: May 19, 2004.
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 781944, styled The State of Texas v. Allan Wayne Majeski, pending in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Bert Richardson presiding.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied.
Sitting: Catherine STONE, Justice, Sarah B. DUNCAN, Justice, Karen ANGELINI, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 21, 2004, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking us to order respondent to grant relator an examining trial pursuant to article 16.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In his petition, relator states that on March 24, 2004, he was indicted for burglary of a habitation. A defendant's right to an examining trial is ended by the return of an indictment. State ex rel. Holmes v. Salinas, 784 S.W.2d 421, 424 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990); In re Blea, No. 04-03-00829-CV, 2003 WL 22715674 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). The traditional and statutory purposes of an examining trial are (1) to determine whether there exists sufficient evidence of guilt to hold a suspect accused of criminal conduct; (2) to determine whether bail should be allowed and if so, the amount of bail; and (3) to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses, including any voluntary statement the suspect may wish to make. Salinas, 784 S.W.2d at 424. Although a defendant has the right to an examining trial, "it is very well settled that this right to a preliminary hearing is not unrestricted but is in fact terminated by the return of an indictment." Id; see Harris v. State, 457 S.W.2d 903, 907 (Tex.Crim.App. 1970) (holding that once a grand jury returns an indictment "the principal purpose and justification of [the examining trial hearing] have been satisfied"). Accordingly, relator is not entitled to the relief sought in his petition. We, therefore, deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus. Tex.R.App.P. 52.8(a).