Opinion issued April 29, 2004
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-04-00407-CR
____________
IN RE SHELDON THOMPSON, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Sheldon Thompson filed a motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator complains that respondent has not ruled on his pro se pretrial motion for speedy trial in cause number 893085. We grant the motion for leave to file, but deny the petition.
“Mandamus will not issue where there is a clear and adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). The question of whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated is directly appealable after conviction. See Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (conviction reversed on speedy trial grounds). In Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 592-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied mandamus relief, holding that the relator had an adequate remedy at law on his speedy trial claims.
Accordingly, we hold that because relator may raise the issue of whether his right to a speedy trial was violated in a direct appeal in the event of conviction, he is ineligible for mandamus relief. The petition is therefore denied.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Bland.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).