IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00036-CR
IN RE WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, Relator William Charles Webb seeks mandamus relief
against the respondent trial judge on the allegation that Respondent has failed to
determine whether Webb is indigent and to rule on Webb’s request for appointment of
counsel under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.1
Code of Criminal Procedure article 64.01(c) provides:
A convicted person is entitled to counsel during a proceeding under this
chapter. The convicting court shall appoint counsel for the convicted
person if the person informs the court that the person wishes to submit a
motion under this chapter, the court finds reasonable grounds for a motion
1The petition for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies. It does not include the certification
required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). It lacks a proper proof of service;
a copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties to the proceeding and must
contain proof of service. Id. 9.5. Because of our disposition and to expedite it, we will implement Rule 2
and suspend these rules in this proceeding only. Id. 2.
to be filed, and the court determines that the person is indigent. Counsel
must be appointed under this subsection not later than the 45th day after
the date the court finds reasonable grounds or the date the court determines
that the person is indigent, whichever is later. . . .
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(c) (West Supp. 2017). Webb asserts that his
declaration of inability to pay costs and request for appointment of counsel were
“requested [and] filed with [Respondent], by U.S. postal mail dated 1-1-2018” and that
Respondent still has not determined whether Webb is indigent and ruled on his request
for appointment of counsel.
A trial judge has a reasonable time to perform the ministerial duty of considering
and ruling on a motion properly filed and before the judge. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225,
228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Webb acknowledges that he mailed
his declaration of inability to pay costs and request for appointment of counsel less than
forty-five days ago. Therefore, even if we assume that Webb has provided an adequate
record showing that his declaration of inability to pay costs and request for appointment
of counsel have been properly filed and are before the judge, we cannot conclude that the
record shows that Respondent has had a reasonable time to determine whether Webb is
indigent and to rule on his request for appointment of counsel. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 64.01(c).
Accordingly, we deny Webb’s petition for writ of mandamus.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
In re Webb Page 2
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed February 7, 2018
[OT06]
In re Webb Page 3