Opinion

In re Allen

  • 462 S.W.3d 47
  • 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 592
  • 2015 WL 2265128
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Filed
May 13, 2015
Status
Published
Author
Meyers
On the bench
Alcala, Hervey, Johnson, Keasler, Keller, Meyers, Newell, Richardson, Yeary
Cited by
68 cases

stating that ¿ “ministerial act, by its nature, does not involve the use of judicial discretion; it must be positively commanded and so plainly prescribed under the law as to be free from doubt”

How later courts described this case

  • stating that ¿ “ministerial act, by its nature, does not involve the use of judicial discretion; it must be positively commanded and so plainly prescribed under the law as to be free from doubt”
  • explaining that “[i]t is proper to order a court to rule a particular way only when the law invoked is ‘definite, unambiguous, and unquestionably applies to the indisputable facts of the case’”
  • holding that mandamus would not lie where a previous opinion from this Court “at a minimum, muddies 'the waters” so that the right to relief was not clear
  • observing that a mandamus case “must be decided on the existing law alone” and is not an appropriate vehicle to “interpret statutory language, clarify this Court’s precedent, or create law where there is none”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Meyers, J.,

filed a concurring opinion.

I agree with the majority’s analysis of the mandamus issue in this case. I write separately to address the dissenting opinions. Judge Alcala’s position on mootness is incorrect. Her solution would be similar to saying that if a judge made a pretrial ruling on a suppression hearing and there was a new judge at the trial, then the ruling in the pretrial hearing would be moot. This is simply not the case. A new judge at trial does not render moot the ruling made by another judge in a pretrial hearing.

Additionally, while I agree with Judge Newell that this is a punishment issue, it is no different than conducting a pretrial determination of whether the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the offense or whether the victim of the offense was below the age of six. Both of these are sentencing issues that would determine whether a defendant would be eligible for the death penalty, and both are properly conducted prior to the beginning of the trial.

With the foregoing comments, I join the majority.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.