NO. 07-02-0529-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
JANUARY10, 2003
______________________________
IN RE RAYMUNDO LEYVA, RELATOR
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.*
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
By this original proceeding, relator Raymundo Leyva, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Jack R. Miller, Judge
of the 64th District Court of Hale County, to dismiss the complaint against him for violating
his right to a speedy trial. For the reasons expressed herein, the petition for writ of
mandamus must be denied.
*
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
1
Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
By his unverified factual assertions, 2 relator claims that he was charged with
escaping from the Hale County Jail and although he gave a bond, has been incarcerated
since 1998 without proceeding to trial. Relator further contends that he has requested the
trial court to dismiss the complaint for violation of his right to a speedy trial. However, his
petition does not contain a certified or sworn copy of any document showing the matter
complained of as required by Rule 52.3(j)(1)(A) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Asserting that the relief requested is a ministerial act, he urges this Court to dismiss the
charge against him and grant him any further relief he may be entitled to.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only in limited circumstances
involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by
other remedies. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). A relator is eligible
for mandamus relief only when he can establish two prerequisites: (1) he has no other
adequate remedy at law, and (2) under the relevant law and facts, the act he seeks to
compel is ministerial. Stotts v. Wisser, 894 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995).
In Pope v. Ferguson, 445 S.W.2d 950, 955-56 (Tex. 1969), the Court held that a
defendant seeking dismissal of an indictment on speedy trial grounds was not eligible for
mandamus relief because he had an adequate remedy at law, to-wit: he could file a
motion to set aside the indictment for violations of his right to a speedy trial pursuant to
2
Tex. R. App. P. 52.3 requires factual assertions to be verified by affidavit.
2
article 27.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, if the trial court
erroneously denied the motion, he could appeal from any conviction that resulted. Id.; see
also Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643, 646 (Tex.Cr.App. 2002) (holding that a four-year
delay denied the defendant his right to a speedy trial). More recently, in Smith v. Gohmert,
962 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998), the Court reiterated that a defendant seeking
to compel dismissal of an indictment on speedy trial grounds had an adequate remedy at
law and thus, was not entitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
3