Denied and Opinion Filed November 4, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-01291-CV
No. 05-16-01292-CV
IN RE DEON FRIDIA, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 203rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1559947 and F-1576821
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Lang
Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks the Court to
order the trial court to grant relator discovery under Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure. Relator's petition is not certified as required by rule 52.3(j) of the rules of appellate
procedure and does not include an appendix or record containing the necessary contents set out
in rules 52.3(k)(1) and 52.7. Although these deficiencies alone constitute sufficient reasons to
deny mandamus relief, in the interest of judicial economy we address the petition.
Mandamus relief is appropriate in a criminal case only when a relator establishes (1) that
he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and (2) that what he seeks to
compel is a ministerial act, not a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Flores, 05-16-00210-
CV, 2016 WL 890969, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 9, 2016, orig. proceeding) (citing In re
Allen, 462 S.W.3d 47, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (orig. proceeding)). Generally, a trial court’s
acts involving discovery under article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure are
discretionary and not subject to a writ of mandamus, but decisions involving pretrial discovery of
evidence that is exculpatory, mitigating, or privileged are not discretionary. See Dickens v.
Court of Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial Dist. of Tex., 727 S.W.2d 542, 552 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1987) (“In a criminal case, a defendant's normal method for challenging pretrial
orders is through appeal.”); see also In re Hartman, 429 S.W.3d 680, 682 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont 2014, no pet.). Here, relator does not complain of an order compelling pre-trial
production of evidence and, therefore, relator has an adequate remedy for review through direct
appeal. See Dickens, 727 S.W.2d at 549 (holding the court of appeals erred in granting
mandamus relief to a defendant seeking pre-trial discovery); see also In re Carroll, 09-12-00343-
CR, 2012 WL 4017772, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Sept. 12, 2012, orig. proceeding) (denying
mandamus relief and holding that direct appeal provided adequate remedy for review of order
that did not compel pretrial discovery).
Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for discovery.
/Douglas S. Lang/
DOUGLAS S. LANG
161291F.P05 JUSTICE
2