In Re Charles M. Farmer v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00073-CR
__________________

IN RE CHARLES M. FARMER

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
County Court at Law No. 2 of Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. C112174
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Charles M. Farmer argues that in Trial

Cause Number C112174, a case in which he is charged with a misdemeanor, he has

been denied a speedy trial. Farmer is an inmate who is currently serving a ninety-

nine-year sentence on a conviction for a felony. In the petition for writ of mandamus,

Farmer complains that because of the detainer filed against him by the Orange

County Sheriff’s Department in February 2021 in Trial Cause Number C112174, the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice has denied him certain privileges and

opportunities that are available to other inmates who are not subject to detainers,

1
which would have been available to him had the detainer not been filed. Farmer asks

that this Court remove the detainer and dismiss the misdemeanor case, Trial Cause

Number C112174.

To establish that the relator who petitions for mandamus is entitled to

mandamus relief, the relator must show that (1) he has no adequate remedy at law to

redress his alleged harm, and that (2) he seeks to compel a ministerial act not

involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist.

Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig.

proceeding). Generally, a trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and to rule on

motions that are properly filed and pending before the court. See In re Henry, 525

S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). If a trial

court refuses to rule on a properly filed and pending motion, mandamus relief may

be appropriate if the relator establishes that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule

on a properly filed motion, (2) was asked to rule on the motion, and (3) has failed or

refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. Id.

Farmer claims he requested a speedy trial on January 23, 2024, that he

requested a bench trial on four dates in 2023 and 2024, and that on August 14, 2023,

a Zoom teleconference addressed “11.09,” presumably an application for a writ of

habeas corpus. See generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.09. Yet Farmer

neither claims to have moved to dismiss based on the denial of his right to a speedy

2
trial, nor does he claim that the trial court has refused to rule on a properly filed

motion to dismiss.

We will assume for the sake of argument that Farmer has asked this Court to

exercise its mandamus jurisdiction, to compel the trial court to dismiss the case, and

to order the Sheriff’s Office to lift the detainer. But without a record that Farmer

presented a motion to dismiss to the trial court, Farmer has not established he is

entitled to the relief he is seeking in his petition for mandamus. Accordingly, the

petition for mandamus is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 26, 2024
Opinion Delivered March 27, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

3