In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-14-00106-CR
________________
IN RE BYRON LYNN LUCAS
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Byron Lynn Lucas filed a writ of mandamus, in which he complains
that the cumulation orders contained in judgments signed in 1999 are void because
the cases were prosecuted in a single criminal action. In two previous mandamus
proceedings filed by Lucas concerning the same issue, this Court concluded that
(1) the record did not support Lucas’s claim that the State prosecuted all of the
cases in a single criminal action, (2) article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure provides the exclusive post-appellate vehicle for challenging a final
felony conviction, and (3) Lucas failed to demonstrate that he could not have
challenged the cumulation orders through direct appeal or habeas corpus. See In re
Lucas, No. 09-09-00567-CV, 2010 WL 183872, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan.
1
21, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Lucas, No. 09-07-157 CV, 2007 WL
1087134, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 12, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op.).
We may grant mandamus relief only if the relator demonstrates that (1) the
act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial, and (2) the relator has no other
adequate legal remedy. See State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist.,
34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Lucas has not shown that he is
entitled to the relief sought. See id.
As previously discussed, we have addressed the same issue in two prior
petitions for writ of mandamus filed by Lucas. Lucas, 2010 WL 183872, at *1;
Lucas, 2007 WL 1087134, at *1. Lucas raises no new issues or arguments in this
proceeding, nor does he provide any additional documentation to support his
claims. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. In addition, if Lucas should
file additional mandamus proceedings raising these claims, we will cite Lucas for
abuse of the writ of mandamus unless he can demonstrate that his claim was not
and could not have been previously raised, and that he has no adequate remedy at
law and the act he seeks to compel is ministerial. See Ex parte Jones, 97 S.W.3d
586, 588-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (noting that frivolous filings waste scarce
judicial and fiscal resources and citing the applicant for abuse of the writ).
2
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Opinion Delivered March 26, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3