Denied and Opinion Filed June 16, 2015.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00711-CV
No. 05-15-00713-CV
No. 05-15-00714-CV
No. 05-15-00715-CV
IN RE ROBERT PAYNE WATSON, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 397th Judicial District Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 064200, 065683, 065684, 062770
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Evans
Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court appoint separate
counsel for each of the pending indictments against him because he seeks four independent trials
and assigning a single court-appointed attorney would unduly burden the appointed attorney and
would adversely affect the preparation of his defense. To establish a right to mandamus relief in
a criminal case, the relator must show that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is
no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App.
2013) (orig. proceeding). The ministerial duty requirement is satisfied if the relator has “‘a clear
right to the relief sought’—that is to say, ‘when the facts and circumstances dictate but one
rational decision’ under unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or
case law sources), and clearly controlling legal principles.” Simon v. Levario, 306 S.W.3d 318,
320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus will not lie to compel the trial court
“to rule a certain way” on an issue which involves judicial discretion. Id. Thus, it is improper to
order a trial court to exercise its judicial (as opposed to its ministerial) function in a particular
way unless the law the relator invokes is definite, unambiguous, and unquestionably applies to
the indisputable facts of the case. Id. Relator has not met this standard. Accordingly, we DENY
the petition.
/ David Evans/
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE
150711F.P05
–2–