Opinion
No. 13-11-00110-CR
Delivered and filed March 9, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Before Justices GARZA, BENAVIDES, and VELA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By petition for writ of mandamus filed on February 25, 2011, relator, Benito Lopez, pro se, seeks an order requiring the trial court to comply with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (the "Act") and dismiss relator's indictment and detainer. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.14 (Vernon 2006). Relator alleges that he is presently incarcerated in federal prison in South Carolina and has an outstanding detainer from Kleberg County, Texas. Relator specifically complains that he has been denied due process of the law because the District Attorney of Kleberg County has failed to comply with the Act, and this failure has denied relator the right to a speedy trial. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
The respondent in this original proceeding is the Honorable Angelica E. Hernandez, Presiding Judge of the 105th[fn] District Court of Kleberg County, Texas.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act not 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). If relator fails to meet either of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. See id. As to the latter requirement, the court of criminal appeals has stated that it is satisfied "if the relator can show he has `a clear right to the relief sought' — that is to say, `when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision' under unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or case law sources), and clearly controlling legal principles." Id. It is relator's burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ("Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks."). In addition to other requirements, relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to "competent evidence included in the appendix or record," and must also provide "a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record." See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).II. BACKGROUND
Relator asserts that, on June 18, 2009, the Kleberg County Sheriff's Office placed a detainer on relator by mail with the Inmate Systems Records Office at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Worth, Texas, where relator was serving a federal prison sentence. Relator contends that he filed an "inmate request to staff" at this prison regarding a motion for a speedy trial in Kleberg County regarding the detainer; however, the staff at the prison did not respond to relator's request. In his appendix, relator has included a copy of the "inmate request to staff," which is directed to "Bernard P. Waller/Inmate Systems Manager" and is dated July 13, 2009. This form includes the hand-written notation that stated, "I'd like to talk to you about my detainer out of Kleberg County to see if we can take care of it before the BOP moves me farther away." The document further provides that, "today 8-21-9 I asked Mr. Waller if [he] had filed with Kleberg Co. my speedy trial motion and he had not." Relator alleges that he mailed a motion pursuant to the Act on March 16, 2010 to the Kleberg County District Court and to the Kleberg County District Attorney, and that these entities received the motion on March 23, 2010. After waiting 180 days without a response, relator filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the Act. According to relator, the Kleberg County authorities still have not responded to his request or motion.III. INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS ACT
The disposition of an interstate detainer is governed by the Act as codified in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51. The Act's purpose is to "encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition" of "charges outstanding against a prisoner, detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints, and difficulties in securing speedy trial of persons already incarcerated in other jurisdictions" based on the rationale that such charges and detainers "produce uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation." See id. art. 51.14, art. I. The Act outlines the cooperative procedure between the jurisdictions to be used when one jurisdiction is seeking to try a prisoner who is currently imprisoned in another jurisdiction. State v. Votta, 299 S.W.3d 130, 134-35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). When a state with an untried indictment, information, or complaint against a prisoner files a detainer with the institution in the state that is holding the prisoner, the prison is required to promptly inform the prisoner that a detainer has been filed against him and that he has the right to request final disposition of the charges. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.14 art. III(c). The prisoner may then request final disposition by giving written notice to the warden, who forwards the request, along with a certificate containing information about the prisoner's current confinement, to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction. See Votta, 299 S.W.3d at 134-35. Under article III(a) of the Act, the prisoner must then be brought to trial in the receiving state within 180 days from the date on which the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court receive this written request for a final disposition, unless a continuance is granted under the Act. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.14, art. III(a); Votta, 299 S.W.3d at 134-35. If the prisoner is not brought to trial within 180 days, the trial court must dismiss the indictment with prejudice. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.14, art. III(d); Votta, 299 S.W.3d at 134-35. Article III of the Act specifies the procedure to be followed when a prisoner seeks a final disposition of an outstanding indictment, information, or complaint. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.14, art. III. In summary, the Act provides that:1. The person seeking the disposition must cause to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition.
2. The request must be accompanied by a certificate of the appropriate official having custody of the prisoner, stating the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decision of the state parole agency relating to the prisoner.
3. The prisoner must send the written notice and request for final disposition to the official having custody of him, who must promptly forward it together with the certification to the appropriate prosecuting official and court by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.See id. art. III(a), (b).