In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-14-00290-CR
_________________
IN RE KEVIN LEE WILLIAMS
________________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 23, 2014, Williams filed a pro se request with the trial court to
obtain free copies of his trial transcripts and records from the trial court, alleging
that he needs the records to prepare a “viable and cohesive writ application.” On
May 6, 2014, the trial court denied Williams’ request for free copies of the records
of his trial.1
1
Kevin Lee Williams pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and a jury
assessed punishment. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for thirty
years. Williams appealed his conviction, and this Court affirmed the judgment.
See Williams v. State, No. 09-10-00219-CR, 2011 WL 6229164 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont, Dec. 14, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication). The
mandate from this Court was issued on February 7, 2012.
1
On June 30, 2014, Williams filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this
Court, and a Supplement thereto on July 31, 2014, in which he seeks to compel the
Judge of the 435th District Court of Montgomery County to rule on his
“Traverse/Rebuttal,” which Williams contends he filed on May 15, 2014, as a
response to the State’s reply to his request for free copies. 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).
After reviewing the record before us, and the Original and Supplemental
Mandamus Petitions, we conclude that the relator has not shown that he has a clear
and indisputable right to the relief he requested from the trial court. See State ex
rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207,
210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Williams cites no authority that required a trial court
to consider and issue a written order on a reply filed by a movant after the trial
court denied his motion. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on August 19, 2014
Opinion Delivered August 20, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
2