Opinion
No. 06-03-00102-CV
Date Submitted: August 7, 2003
Date Decided: August 8, 2003
Original Mandamus Proceeding.
DENIED. Relator's Motion for Reconsideration OVERRULED.
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Billy Clyde Hamilton has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, pro se, in which he asks this Court to order the trial court to answer or reply to his motion for discovery and inspection pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 39.14 (Vernon Supp. 2003). Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994); Stotts v. Wisser, 894 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995).
Although the statute does require adequate discovery, it does not require the trial court to either answer or reply to the motion, except for setting it for hearing and ruling on it. Filing responses or answers to motions are properly within the purview of the opposing party, in this case, the State.
Hamilton has not shown this Court that the trial court has refused to set his motion for hearing or to rule on it. He therefore has not shown that the trial court has either abused its discretion or that it has violated a duty imposed by law.
The petition is denied.