Ex parte ANTHONY CHARLES GRAVES v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (Other)

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » Court of Criminal Appeals » 2009 » Ex parte ANTHONY CHARLES GRAVES v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (Other)

State: Texas

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals

Docket No: PD-0143-09

Case Date: 02/25/2009

Plaintiff: Ex parte ANTHONY CHARLES GRAVES

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS (Other)

Preview:In re Edwin Carl Debrow, Jr.--Appeal from 73rd
Judicial District Court of Bexar County
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-05-00082-CV
IN RE Edwin Carl DEBROW
Original Mandamus Proceeding //
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 9, 2005
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
In January 2001, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court s failure to rule on his
application for writ of habeas corpus, which he filed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 11.07. A panel of
this court held that a district judge is not required to consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus under article
11.07 filed by a juvenile not certified to stand trial as an adult; therefore, relator s first petition was denied. See In re
Debrow, No. 04-01-00095-CV, 2001 WL 121103, *1 (Tex. App. San Antonio Feb. 14, 2001) (per curiam) (not
designated for publication).
In April 2004, relator filed a second petition for writ of mandamus, asking this court to order the District Clerk of
Bexar County to forward his application for writ of habeas corpus to the Court of Criminal Appeals. A panel of this
court determined we had no mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that issuance of the writ is
necessary to enforce our jurisdiction; therefore, relator s second petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See In
re Debrow, No. 04-04-00241-CV, 2004 WL 1055080, *1 (Tex. App. San Antonio May 12, 2004) (per curiam) (not
designated for publication).
In June 2004, relator filed his third petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the State s failure to file a response
to his application for writ of habeas corpus and the trial court s refusal to rule on his application. Because relator did
not allege that the District Attorney and the unidentified State Prosecuting Attorneys were interfering with this court s
jurisdiction, we denied relator s requested relief as to those entities. See In re Debrow, No. 04-04-00424-CV, 2004 WL
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/18021.html[8/20/2013 7:45:44 PM]

2612533, *1 (Tex. App. San Antonio Aug. 11, 2004) (per curiam) (not designated for publication). On the other hand,
relator s complaint, which underlies his continued attempt to have his application for writ of habeas corpus considered,
was his contention that he was prevented from filing a timely notice of appeal from his juvenile adjudication because
he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Relator has attempted to have an application for writ of habeas corpus
heard since at least 2000. The application that was the subject of the third petition for writ of mandamus was filed in
March 2002. Accordingly, because this court was of the tentative opinion that a serious question concerning the relief
requested required further consideration, we requested a response from the respondent. On July 14, 2004, respondent
filed a response, explaining as follows:
[Relator s] writ was originally sent to the District Clerk s Office . . . to be filed in the 73rd District Court[,] which is
the court of origin in this matter. It appears to Respondent, the 186th District Court, that the District Clerk s Office
assigned this case to the 186th District Court, rather than the 73rd District Court.
When this matter was finally brought to the attention of Respondent, the 186th District Court, the court denied [relator
s] writ, based on the position that the 186th District Court has no connection with [relator s] case, other than the
arbitrary assignment of the writ to this court after it was originally filed in the District Clerk s Office in March of 2002.
Attached to respondent s response was a copy of the trial court s July 8, 2004 Order Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Because the trial court had ruled on relator s application for writ of habeas corpus, a panel of this court denied his third
petition for writ of mandamus as moot, without prejudice to relator s right to re-file his application in the 73rd Judicial
District Court. See In re Debrow, 2004 WL 2612533, at *2.
On February 7, 2005, relator filed his fourth petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court s failure to
rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus. Apparently the application was filed in the 73rd Judicial District
Court. In this fourth petition, relator stated his application for writ of habeas corpus, filed on September 13, 2004, had
not yet been ruled upon despite his attempts to obtain a ruling. He asked this court to compel the trial court to rule on
his application.
On February 10, 2005, this court requested a response from the respondent. On February 23, 2005, respondent filed a
response stating that the relief requested in relator s writ was granted on February 23, 2005. A copy of the Order On
Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus was attached to the response.
Because the trial court has now ruled on relator s application for writ of habeas corpus, we DENY his petition for writ
of mandamus as moot.
PER CURIAM
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/18021.html[8/20/2013 7:45:44 PM]

Download 18021.pdf