Opinion
WR-94,725-02
06-21-2023
IN RE FREDI RODRIGUEZ, Relator
Do not publish
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS CAUSE NO. W15-23307-Q(A) IN THE 204TH DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY.
Keller, P.J., filed a concurring and dissenting opinion in which Keel and Slaughter, JJ., joined.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Relator has filed a motion, which this Court now construes as a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this Court's original jurisdiction. In re Daniel, 396 S.W.3d 545, 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). In it he contends that at some time after he filed his -01 application for a writ of habeas corpus in Dallas County on February 22, 2023, but before that application was denied by this Court on April 19, 2023, he filed a supplemental application raising three additional grounds for review in the district court. However, Relator alleges that the supplemental application was never forwarded to this Court, and therefore those three additional grounds for review were never addressed. This Court received no supplemental records after it received the initial habeas record on April 7, 2023.
Respondent, the District Clerk of Dallas County, shall state whether any supplemental documents pertaining to the habeas application were filed in Dallas County by Relator after the Article 11.07 habeas application filed by Relator in Dallas County on February 22, 2023. If any such documents were filed in Dallas County, either before or after the habeas record was forwarded to this Court, the Dallas County District Clerk shall state why those documents were not forwarded to this Court. If such documents were filed by Relator in Dallas County, the Dallas County District Clerk shall immediately forward copies of those documents to this Court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 3(c) and (d); Tex.R.App.P. 73.4(b)(5). This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall comply with this order within thirty days from the date of this order.
Keller, P.J., filed a concurring and dissenting opinion in which Keel and Slaughter, JJ., joined.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
Applicant has filed a motion titled "Emergency Judicial Request." That motion says, in its entirety:
Please bring to Justices attention supplemental errors 7, 8, and 9 of writ were sent to trial court prior to this court['s] April 19 ruling to deny relief.
Errors 7-9 are structural errors the Trial Court never forwarded to CCA, and no ODI was issued by trial court to resolve.
Prayer: Vacate 4-19-2023 order to deny and remand to Trial Court to resolve Errors 7,8, 9, that were never addressed.
The Court now construes the motion to be a request for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus. But Applicant does not ask this Court for permission to file his motion. The motion is, at best, an application for writ of mandamus unaccompanied by a request for leave to file. As such, it should be denied.
But I disagree with this Court's decision to construe Applicant's pleading as being one of mandamus. Applicant is asking that we vacate our own order and then remand to the trial court. His pleading seems to be a suggestion for reconsideration on our own motion.
I think our ability to reconsider a habeas application can accommodate the possibility that supplemental claims filed before our disposition were not forwarded to this Court. I agree with all the Court has ordered the district clerk to do, but I would do so pursuant to our habeas authority rather than call this proceeding a mandamus.