# in Re Bryan Chance McBee > Court of Appeals of Texas · July 21, 2015 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4063567 ## Case - **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas - **Decided:** July 21, 2015 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4063567 ## Opinion text PD-0897-15 IN THE SU?REME COURT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS NO. -:" FILED IN SUPREME COURT IN RE OF TEXAS BRYAN CHANCE MCBEE JUL 16 2015 APPEAL-FROM BLAKE HAWTHORNE, Clerk BY PATRICK D. PASSMORE, Deputy COURT OF APPEALS NINTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT BEAUMONT NO. 09-15-00179-CR Trial Court No. 13-04-03591-CR 221st District Court of Montgomery County Conroe, Texas PETITION FOR REVIEW Bryan Chance McBee Petitioner 200 Lee Morrison Lane Bryan, Texas 77807 REQUEST FOR A HEARING IN LEAVE TO PROCEED IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL Bryan Chance McBee Petitioner 200 Lee Morrison Lane Hamilton Bryan, Texas 77807 Respondents Judge Lisa Michalk, 221st District Court of Montgomery, County 207 W. Phillips St., Ste, 300 Conroe, Texas 77301 Natalie Traylor, Assistant Coordinator Jennifer Wade 221st District Court of Montgomery County, 207 W. Phillips St. Ste. 300 Conroe, Texas 77301 McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ., Ninth Court of Appeals 1001 Paerl Beaumont, Texas Montgomery District Attorney's Office 207 W. Phillip St. Conroe, Texas 77301 CONTENTS OF PETITION PAGE Identity of parties and counsel Table of Contents 1 Index of Authorities 11,111 Statement of the case 1,2 Statement of jurisdiction 2,3 Issues presented 2 Whether there is a conflict between the courts of appeals on an important point of law Whether the Court of Appeals had authority to review an extra ordinary remedy on its own motion the court took notice sua sponte that it lacked kurisdiction over the case Whether it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court has an official duty to manage the court supervision Statement of facts 2,3 Summary of the argument 3, 4 Argument 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 Prayer 13,14 Certificate of Service 14 14 Verification Appendix INDEX OF AUTHORITIES PAGE CASES Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Tex.1991)13 Boddie v. Connecticut, 91 S.Ct. 780 (1971) 7 Callahan v. Giles, 131 Tex. 571, 155 S.W.2d 793, 795 (194 ) 10 Canadian Helicopter Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex.1994)10 Creel v. District Atty. for Medina County, 818 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex.1991) 10 Eniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) 10 Ex parte Harrington, 310 S.W.3d 452 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) 11 Ex parte Lockett, 956 S.W.2d 41, 42 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) 11 In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2004)9 In re McAllen, 275 S.W.3d at 464 12 In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex.2011) 12 In re Reprudential Ins. Co. of Am. 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex.2004)12 Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2d 497, 502 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) 11 Metzer v. State, 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) 9 Mattox v. Grimes County Com'er Court, 305 S.W.3d 375 (Tex. 13 App. -HoustonC{:14tIV:Distr. ]2010) M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 117 S.Ct. 555 (1996) 7 Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)11 Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117-18 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)8 Rivercenter Assoc, v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex.1993)19 State ex rel. Curry v. Gray^ 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) 10 stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex.1979) 8 Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex.1992) 10 Westerman v. Mims, 111 Tex.29, 227 S.W. 178, 181 (1921) 10 White v. Reiter, 640 S.W.2d 586, 596 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) 10 RULES AND STATUTES Government Code § 51.606 1 § 22.221 (a)(b)(c) 2,10.11 § 52.047 (a)(l)(2) 6 § 411.194 (a)(b)(c) .6,7 Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07 H Article 11.07, §§ 2,3 6 Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 9.5 8 Rule 20 6 Rule 34.5(g) 6 Rule 34.6(h) 6 Rule 52.7(a)(1) 8 Rule 53.2 2 in STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a case in seeking a petition for writ of mandamus to issue an Order on the trial court judge to direct the court coordinator to docket this motion for Intra Loan of the Appellate Records that has been filed with the Court by the Clerk. The Court Coordinator has refused to set the matter for a hearing. Bruan Chance McBee appeals from his third-degree felony conviction for assault on a family member. See Tex.Penal Code Ann.§22.01(a)(1), (b)(2) (West Supp.2013). The jury found McBee guilty and assessed punishment at eight years in prison. McBee was convicted of assault ing T.P., a 47 year old female. Respondent is a judge Lisa Michalk, 221st Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, 207 W.Phillips St., Ste 300, Conroe, TX 77301 Respondent Natalie Traylor, Assistant District Coordinator, Jennifer Wade of the 221st Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas 207 S.Phillips St., Ste 300, Conroe, TX 77301 The Respondents has failed to set the pleadings for a hearing on a motion to compel a ministerial act, not involving a discre tionary or judicial decision. The Clerk's Office filed the Motio To Compel on March 2, 2015, for the Court Coordinator to document the matters for hearing to allow the Clerk to bring the file to the trial court on the date of the hearing for an in chambers ruling, to allow the Relator the right for Intra Loan of the trial Clerk's records to be mailed to the Hamilton Unit Law Library Supervisor for checking out to the offender to review them for 2 hour- sessions Monday through Saturday for 30 days to prepare 1 his petition. The Ninth Court of Appeals issued the Original Opinion on April 9, 2014. Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ., in No. 09-13-00232.-CR On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13-04-03591-CR. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Government Code § 22.221(a)(b)(c); Rule 53.2 Rules of Appellate Procedure. Courts will issue mandamus to correct a clear abuse of dis cretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy available by appeal. This Supreme Court has jurisidction to review the Ninth Court of Appeals Opinion decided on May 26, 2015. ISSUED PRESENTED Whether there is a conflict between the courts of appeals on an important point of law Whether the Court of Appeals had authority to review an extraordinary remedy on its own motion the court took notice sua sponte that it lacked jurisdiction over the case -Whether it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court has an official duty to manage the court supervision STATEMENT OF FACTS The Clerk filed the Motion To Compel the Court Coordinator to these matters for a In Camera hearing on March 2, 2015, it has been pending over 30 days and no hearing has been documented as requested in a timely manner. Generally, a document is considered "filed when it is tendered to the clerk, or otherwise put under the custody or control of the clerk." A party seeking mandamus relief must show that (1) the trial court had a legal duty to act, (2) there was a demand for performance, and (3) there was a refusal to act. The trial judge is the supervisor over his court to make sure that all duties are conducted in an ministrerial performance. These duties where neglected or refused by the court personnel or under the authority of the trial judge per se. SUMMARY OF THE AURGUMENT Trial court has discretion to change its mind about interlocutory orders so long as that change does not deprive a party of the opportunity to litigate the determinative issues in the case. "[A]s a general rule, the appellate courts, including this Court, should afford almost total deference to a trial court's determina tion of the historical facts that the record supports especially when the trial courts fact findings are based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. To ensure that mandamus remains extraordinary remedy, petitioners must show that they lack adequate alternative means to obtain relief they seek, and carry burden of showing that their right to issuance of writ is clear and indesputable. Verification is contained in the petition does qualify Inmate Litigation is a question of fact containing a challenge to receiving access to the Clerk's records to present the supporting facts to his claim are on file in the Court's record is entitled to leniency subject to supplement, subpeona of the records to be made available to the Courts on review per se. To apply a higher standard of review on the offender is considered a denial of access of a full review of the merits of the claim for review for a fact finding process. That would allow the Courts to gress at the proof of a material fact issue per se. Once jurisidction of an appellate court is invoked, [] exercise of its reviewing functions is limited only by its own discretion or a valid restrictive statute. ARGUMENT Petitioner presented a series of events that are ministerial duties of performance of the Court's personnel that is under a rule to provide access to the courts.Once the authority fails remedies becames an issue of law. Relator seeks mandamus relief from an alleged refusal by the trial court to rule on the motion to compel the coordinator to set these matters for a in camera hearing to allow the Clerk to bring the file to the Court for a ruling on his Motion For Intra Loan of the Appellate records of the Court for reviewing through the Hamilton Unit Law Library in preparation of his petition to be filed in the trial court. See Memorandum Opinion Bryan Chance McBee petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the judge of the 221st District Court of Montgomery County to require the court coordinator to set for hearing McBee's motion for a loan of the duplicate record that was prepared for an appeal. See generally Tex.R.App.P. 34.5(g), 34.6(h). Petitioner did present his claim in the area of loan of the record through an agency of the State of Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division Hamilton Unit Law Lib rary Access to Courts personnel as a supervisor control and main tain the records under lock and key for the offender to check out Monday through Saturday session for 2 hours through a control log 183 sign out logging procedure. Which this procedure has been available to the offenders through the access to courts since 1996. This available access is being denied through of Rules or Procedures that the Court of Appeals has made their own sua sponte ruling on the facts of their discovery from the pleadings that where made available to them per se. See supra Rule 34.5(g) Additional copies of clerk's record in criminal cases. In criminal case, the clerk's record must be made in -" duplicate, and in a case in which the death penalty was assessed, in triplicate. The trial court clerk must retain the copy or copies for the parties: to use with the court's permission. Rules of Appellate Porcedure Rule 36.6(h) Additional copies of reporter's record in criminal cases. In a criminal case in which a party requests a reporter's record, the court reporter must prepare a duplicate of the reporter's record and file it with the trial court clerk. In a case where the death penalty was assessed, the court reporter must prepare two duplicates of the reporter's record. In this case the records was prepared by the Clerk and Court Reporter in Case No. 09-13-00232-CR and an opinion issued April 5 9, 2014. A copy of the records are maintained in the Ninth Court of Appreals from 25 years and 15 years in the trial court in Cause No. 13-04-03591-CR. This is not a case where the records has not been prepared. The situation is where the defendant has not had the records to prepare his petition for discretionary review and/or a application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07, § 2,3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Government Code § 52.047. Transcripts (a) A person may apply for a transcript of the evidence in a case reported by an official court reporter. The person must apply for the transcript in writing to the official court reporter. The official court reporter shall furnish the transcript to the person not later than the 120th day after the date the: (1) application for the transcript is received by the reporter; and (2) transcript fee is paid or the person establishes indigency as provided by Rule 20, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Government Code § 411.194. Reduction of Fees Due to Indigency (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the department shall reduce by 50 percent any fee required for the issuance of an original, duplicate, modified, or renewed license under this subchapter if the department determines that the applicant is indigent. (b) The department shall require an applicant requesting a reduction of a fee to submit proof of indigency with the application materials. (c) For purposes of this section, an applicant is indigent if the applicant's income is not more than 100 percent of the applicable income leve established by the federal poverty guidelines Government Code § 411.197 Rules The director shall adopt rules to administer this subchapter. Indigency, The state or condition of a person who lacks the means of subsistence; extremehardship or neediness; poverty. Indigent, A person who is found to be financially unable to pay filing fees and court costs and is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court has recognized an indigent petitioner's right to have certain fees and costs waived in divorce and termination-of-parental-rights cases. Boddie v. Connecticut, 91 S.Ct. 780 (1971); M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 117 S.Ct. 555 (1996). Government Code § Prohibited Fees § 51.606 A clerk is not entitiled to a fee for: (1) the examination of a paper or record in the clerk's office; (2) filing any process or document the clerk issues that is returned to court; (3) a motion or judgment on a motion for security for costs;or (4) taking or approving a bond for costs. In the instant case, petitioner is confronted with a question of f act of a shifting procedure. See Memorandum Opinion indicating: McBee does not contend that the trial court retains plenary power over the criminal case. We issued a mandate of affirmance in July 2014. See generally McBee v. State, No. 09-13-00232-CR, 2014 WL 1400656, at *5 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Apr. 9, 2014, pet.ref'd) (mem. op.) (affirming judgment as modified). There is no active habeas proceeding; accordingly, this Court has mandamus jurisdiction. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117-18 (Tex.Crim.App.2013). However, the mandamus petition lacks certified or sworn copies of "every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief[.]" See Tex.R.App.P. 52.7(a)(1). McBee suggest he cannot provide copies of documents because he is a prisoner. McBee also failed to provide proof of service on the respondent and the prosecuting attorney. See Tex.R.App.P. 9.5. Petitioner prepared a certification at the end of his petition [that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence in the Clerk's record of the 221st District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. On this 7th day of May 2015.] Petitioner had seeked mandamus relief from ah.alleged refusal by the trial court to rule on the motion to compel the Court Coordinator to set these matters for a in camera hearing to allow the Clerk to bring the file to the Court for a ruling on his Motion For Intra Loan of the Appellate records of the court for reviewing through the Hamilton Unit Law Library in preparation of his petition to be filed in the trial court. A party seeking mandamus relief must show that (1) the trial court had a legal duty" to act, (2) there was a demand for perform ance, and (3) there was a refusal to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex.1979). Showing that a motion was filed with the clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought 8 to the attention of the trial court. In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding). The trial court is not required to consider a motion unless it is called to its attention. Metzer v. State, 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied. McBee contends: that the Motion for Intra Loan of the Transcription, records, statements was mailed to the Court Coordinator Jennifer Wade, 221st District Court of Montgomery CountyCourthouse on or about January 12, 2015, for setting a hearing and filing it with the Clerk ... many letters making all attempts to receive communications of the filing and setting of an in camera hearing for a ruling. But, relator did not receive a copy returned stamped filed of the Motion To Compel on March 2, 2015. To the extend McBee asks this Court to direct the District Judge to direct the Court Coordinator to set the matters for in camera hearing to allow the Clerk to bring the file to the Court ... at the earliest possible date for a ruling. The District Court is the Supervisor over his or her Court personnel ... A party seeking mandamus relief must establish that the party has no adequate remedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827, 833, 842 (Tex.1992). McBee has demonstrated that he could not challenge the lack of a ruling and no appeal is available by direct appeal. Relator argues that if there has been a clear abuse of discr- tion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal, mandamus will issue* The legislature has prescribed jurisdiction of a court of appeals to issue writs of mandamus (1) to enforce its jurisdiction. (2) against judges of district and county courts in the district of the particular court of appeals. Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (vernon 1988 & Supp.2006). Mandamus is a legal remedy. Westerman v. Mims, 111 Tex. 29, 227 S.W. 178, 181 (1921), even though equit able principles apply. Rivercenter Assoc, v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex.1993); Callahan v. Giles, 131 Tex. 571, 155 S.W.2d 793, 795 (194 ). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, when there is no other adequate remedy by law. Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex.1994). Consideration of a motion properly filed and before a trial court is ministerial. See White v. Reiter, 640 S.W.2d 586, 596 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). Fundamental requirements of due process mandate an opportunity to be heard. Creel v. District Atty.for Medina County, 818 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex.1991). Thus, a district court may be compelled via mandamus to consider and rule on a pending motion presented to the court. See State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). Mandamus, however, will not issue to compel a particular result in a discretionary decision on a motion. Id.: White. 640 S.W.2d at 593-94. The applicant for a writ of habeas copus has the burden of proving his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Eniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). In reviewing application, we must review the record evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, and we must uphold 10 that ruling absent an abuse of discretion. Id. We decide whether a trial court abused its discretion by determining whether the court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles, or in other words, whether the court acted arbitrarily or unreason ably. Lyles v. State, 850 S.W.2d 497, 502 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision lies outside of the zone of reasonable disagreement. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (tex.Crim.App.1980) (op.on reh'g). Under Article 11.07, a person who files a habeas corpus appli cation for relief from a final felony conviction must challenge either the fact or length of confinement. Ex parte Lockett, 956 S.W.2d 41, 42 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). In this case, the question is whether a person who has discharged his sentence prior to filing an application, but who continues to suffer collateral consequences arising from the challenged conviction, is entitled to seek post-conviction habeas relief under Article 11.07. Ex parte Harrington, 310 S.W.3d 452 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). Petitioner is in an area that this Court can assist with the circumstances of the mere fact that with out the Clerk's records a petitioner is unable to support his application and this Court has the authority to clearly establish a standing to challenge the conviction. See Memorandum Opinion Bryan Chance McBee appeals from his third-degree felony conviction for assault on a family member. See Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2) (West Supp. 2013). The jury found McBee guilty and assessed punishment at eight years in prison. McBee was convicted of assaulting T.P., 11 a 47 year old female. McBee argues on appeal that the evidence was legally insuffic ient to support his conviction, and that the trial court abused its discretion in assessing attorney fees against him. We conclude the evidence was legally sufficient to support his conviction, but we otherwise modify the judgment to delete the assessment of attorney fees against McBee, and we affirm the judgment as modified. This case has a serious problem with ineffective, assistance of counsel in the trial and appeal and the record will demonstrate the supporting facts that the appeal was improperly challenged that is a procedural default in the challenge to the sufficiency of the "evidence that was wrongful raised pursuant to an area of law that is incorrect for the standard of review. See In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex.2011). Further, Mandamus is an "extraordinary remedy, not issued as a matter of right, but at the discretion of the court," in Reprudential Ins. Co. of Am, 148 S.W3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). "Mandamus review of significant rulings in exceptional cases may be essential to preserve important sub stantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss ..." Id.at 136. Mandamus is a remedy not restricted by "rigid rules" that are "necessarily inconsistent with the flexibility that is the remedy's principle virtue." Id:;; See also In re McAllen, 275 S.W.3d at 464 (noting that whether a clear abuse of discretion can be remedied on appeal "depends heavily on circumstances; it must be guided by analysis or principle rather than simple rules 12 t!"iat treat cases as categories"), and mandamus is a proper vehicle for this court to correct blatant injustice that otherwise would elude review by the appellate court. Generally, a party is entitled to mandamus relief against a public official when there is (1) a legal duty to perform a non- discretionary act, (2) a demand for performance of that act, and (3) a refual to perform. Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Tex.1991). See Mattox v. Grimes County Com'er Court, 305 S.W.3d 375 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2010). An a^t is non-discretionary, or ministerial, and subject to mandamus relief, when the law clearly spells out the duty to be performed by the official with sufficient certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion. PRAYER For the foregoing reasons, this Court should find that the Respondent is the Supervior of the 221st District Court of Mont gomery County, Texas, and that the Motion for Intra Loan of the trial records has been filed by the Court Coordinator and refused to document the Motion and the Motion to Compel the Court Coordinator to set these matters for an in camera hearing for a ruling. Respondent is direct to set, hear and rule on relator's Motion to Review the Trial/Appellate Records within a reasonable time. WHEREFORE PREMISES AND CONSIDERED Petitioner prays that this Court will grant petition in leave to proceed on writ of mandamus by treating the pleadings as petition for review in all things requested. We anticipate that respondent will comply with in a reasonable manner by ordering the trial court to rule on Motion 13 to Compel. Or in the alternative grant further relief justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, Bryan Chance McBee TDCJ #1941708 200 Lee Morrison Lane Hamilton Bryan, Texas 77807 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument Petition for Review has been served on the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas P.O. Box 12248 Austin, Texas 78711- 2248 to make a copy of the same and serve it on the opposing parties through the District Attorney of Montgomery County 207 W. Phillips Conroe, Texas 77301, on this 12th day of July, 2015. Bryan Chance McBee VERIFICATION I hereby certify that the preparation of the pleadings are true and correct to the best of my knowledge under the penalty of perjury. Bryan Chance McBee 14 APPENDIX Exhibit A fltfMct I/tobitef 7, fay Oof L £sMx//if A In The Court ofAppeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-15-00179-CR IN RE BRYAN CHANCE MCBEE Original Proceeding MEMORANDUM OPINION Bryan Chance McBee petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the judge of the 221st District Court of Montgomery County to require the court coordinator to set for hearing McBee's motion for a loan of the duplicate record that was prepared for an appeal. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(g), 34.6(h). McBee does not contend that the trial court retains plenary power over the criminal case.1 There is no active habeas proceeding; accordingly, this Court has mandamus jurisdiction. See Padieu v. Court ofAppeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 'We issued a mandate of affirmance in July 2014. See generally McBee v. State, No. 09-13-00232-CR, 2014 WL 1400656, at *5 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 9, 2014, pet. refd) (mem. op.) (affirming judgment as modified). 117-18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). However, the mandamus petition lacks certified or sworn copies of "every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief[.]" See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1)- McBee suggests he cannot provide copies of documents because he is a prisoner. McBee also failed to provide proof of service on the respondent and the prosecuting attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. The petition nevertheless demonstrates that McBee is not entitled to mandamus relief because he has not shown that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief. See In re Williams, No. 09-09-00584-CV, 2010 WL 183861, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 21, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also In re Cash, No. 06-04-00045-CV, 2004 WL 769473, at *1 (Tex. App.— Texarkana Apr. 13, 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (A trial court has no duty to rule on "free-floating motions unrelated to currently pending actions."). The relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on May 26, 2015 Opinion Delivered May 27, 2015 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 2 hM^h RECEIVED AND FILED /vappRRE'COR'D'/v Att4-iZXO'clbCK»««ii,R MAY..] 1 2.011- SARBARraifDDEN ADAMICK Dismct Clerk MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS Sy=. Deputy fDxivym District 13-&h*^ I-#- U£ftumorv)T kxas Ik. Re * CORiT (00_ d3\— QrsTMcTCoaaTXvoCpiascfOo B-O\-035°i\ TrmlCouk- ljw«o Tans "7 78O7 KtQuest \0\\ Dft.PL WGuouk>ts ZLroocx Of nWes fiT$ __ PflGlf J_D£iOTJT4 OF rBf"j£s Qf^D Course x IflGLeOfCoi^eiOTS Tl _Lrv)oexQf nUTVoumes -rn- OTFiTem£i\>T Of Ii^Gfisg" I vj*\fiTCroe/oi OFOuoi^DiCTIQrO ^ STPuenneiOT Of rOas ^ R^Gum€(\3T 3,L|,5 5 L>ftUIfICfYiIO(0 ^ _LfODtX, Of ftu'TVXOfclTteS CftuftwmoV.GiLes 13116*511,1555.1^1^115 (m) q CftiofiMo^WeacopreJS^V IOijttig T74>5.oi3tci304,30S6^ \W^ 4 CWt VDistrict fiiToa^foafleojMflCou^Ts* H^uadiHS^i^ H^ l) 4 Cam vGRw736)5.lAiac3i ia5,/atl(Te*Gir*ftPRRtfO 4 Dmdw 153 3tA3Jl 4C[0,4C( \(fe^ft^iccaOfUGpfi(xfcw^a004) 3 ffieTtwi l/5Tme^2 5U3iaSlO/fl TextolW^lWiflw') 3 fWG^ftsrcfWa*V Riuero1558 5.(J.3(ioiKiATor? ToOqc\c£tThis (tyytfiao FoallxlTO LoF^OfT^ QflPOtftfc RccOOCsT^RI fe feri flcfcD lOlTtiTtiE Q&aee fea^Gj^oiaw Voa (^sauuOioAWi^ Ma»BeaSee — TaPo^cGoe PW£Q.Q \ \M \(b)A 63£S(3uPP^Ol3T^3tifw^D PHF^DGCUUTlW niOOHsse^Q \uiojs*\rh£itff WtEi^itgarsIv) Prison Is Juoaz Li^fi^IC-^L^OfTM£aa^~ District DomuQf I Wresmeiw CoUf\)TW 11XP>$, 307 LOtsr RmlliPs (_OfOftn£ I*7 730 \ Rtstorooovrr (DflTfiue IfaWbOR HssiSTftiOT .DistrictjQou&sr LoaRoiMvroft, CpUiW \kfcfts 307 LOgst fwialfc SuJve301 (jOrOUDt Uxfis77301 fl POoTJofOb/SonnPec ft f^ioKmaiflLllcT fuoilmUDLOirvj(bH0i\o H\\oioTiAtCoan.T Cleat lotWxb rue kTH£lawr()f\) Ihc UftT£ Of Vkpo.v36 ronHrtlv) U^^SfRSIMII^gTo(Wo lH£TOP)TOR |V£ RiGHTf Fon TrvjTRft LoRro OfT^Tfttflt(jWs Rtcoat* lovX fOftHfO blue HawtooIWt Lflio LlSravrt Jupeaoxsoiin^Cucc^A lv&n raft SlVxMiSe^io^r^^owT^a^ OfrruflOfW fon30 Df*&To H?FmRe l~u^ ' CR Gas PfeflL FtfopTwe33r DistrictCourt Pbi^KbOfhc^ Couiox^ Ik IrtpcGjurt " -Cftuserv)o\3r04-a351l OTRT£i*>aur Of JuPis&rctloJO .H^5 Court rlQfr UUttisoicricW Vwnsww 10 \JCQ£Q.m€w CopCS J oQ.^3\(a)Qo)^); Ruir53.3_fUcsO flteu^P^ouRC. Couoxs L0lcc3sSc^ QOOfWOflmuS loGo^tcf 9\ C&PWn&ttCf Di^RCTioto 0(iTv\e OaolpitioiO Or P) OaTVjihPose^S^ LOlO _ Issue Vfees£iOT£D __ _ Thc l(ci^Gx*atWp&96us6blTsDr^ftnJo«oGMppiia*3b loSct luc RepoiaGS P)ct rDoTljOoaoii^Pl Drsaicac^w^ O^Ouotciftc Decision. sSlflTeraor Of facts 1HeCjLgr^c ri(£o \h€ IMOTioro lo Ccywa IurCa^Loa&iioAToR. loJei lv£Se PtyvrasfoR. QiviXtfGatorr IW^QwWApcrtolQOIS, It \\p&6b&0 lo 0 lunet^ fHfiio^eR. CiioeRfti^ y\ Oocunc.vK3sCc*toiDCK£D Vilgd U)v\GfO>i'vXs Itiooenro loTv-\tCie^OaOt^u»~ \VtUrOoeK 'TWCustow 0aCo^aoc0^1\^CLed\c Pi 99^5reiaao(^R(v)0ft(ms> fkacF PlusTSvburiumCOTHeT^^CouRT [\fo9\ IjKfli.Owrt \oftcr Q)Tvc^^sfl0ew,ODW^fo^B^ce Plioc(3) ThewmfmSe-(~[\\E$ivJi-£ l4ftmiaofoUwitLBtob6flAR^Jl^ra£PRfWTlo/oOF|^ rWuo^ToBe HrflRT^3e£KJriO(OSTJT(AT€ ftoQp"T«AT Iwcfflxfo^ £3p& U2oue>HrloTne PhTc^TJaoO^HtTsjflcCoua^ 1m fit Orjipsoio 1535IO.^Hl)^! (l£x fipp Hmfnat(o300f-\ OfljsumBiocfazjot) TucTotalGuarls fUir nEQuinep loGsftSioeit fl 3Q4SCT£xfleplWrofa\"0i5T(ucT)wLl /aJRit Ofe'r^eo n^BeeQwTEi^qs ' TiAwTHc f^ona^ &Q^^ k)h$ PIajgedTo li^G^uRTG3o^j^(>n'o^K3tcifciiu)p\i^ dcUf District CoaatOf fU^TGor^efctCouMT^ Id»r90l5 roft SeTTOfcftIkfiMKfcfWo FiavOblTtOtTv-XHeCunK fHw Leiie^fO^/oG Hnernpis io hecejo6,G3m^uro3cmiaoOf \v\e FraiOkftoDSeniribOf HtiIw(W«A HeAiu^rGaftRuaNXo.ljaTR^^^ Reruftiocp Str^Pcd FkepOioTHeFW^fl^ ExretfT fTaBrcftsKS THlsGWrToD^ea Ine DiSiniaJuo^ lo Oxnsa Imc^rtCoow^ator Jo3eiTt\Gse P0ftTT€Rs Fok ftfviX^Cfv>>£Rft \kfiRuO(b7oPi\\oioTv\c Ceea\c lofWe Ihc FueTo IhcGmart nf Ihc EpKUicscvasss&e OtoeWP) RucuXo. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4063567. Public record. Not legal advice.