In Re William Curtis Jones v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00214-CR
__________________

IN RE WILLIAM CURTIS JONES

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 15-27212
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, William Curtis Jones complains that the

trial court has not ruled on “fifteen-plus motions to set aside the judgment of

conviction[.]” We deny mandamus relief.

Jones claims he recently filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus that

is an active proceeding before the Court of Criminal Appeals. He complains that his

“request for access to the State’s Discovery Files remains unfulfilled[.]” Jones asks

this Court to compel the trial court to “issue a ruling on the numerous motions that

have been filed with the court.” As alternative relief, he asks this Court to order the

trial court to “enforce the production” by the Jefferson County District Attorney’s

1
Office of a criminal complaint affidavit that was “instrumental” in obtaining the

indictments on which he was convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison. See

generally Jones v. State, No. 09-18-00071-CR, 2019 WL 3308958 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont July 24, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Jones has failed to demonstrate that the trial court has a ministerial duty to

rule on his motions at this time, nor has he shown that he lacks an adequate remedy

at law through his active post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding. See In re

McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig.

proceeding) (“[T]he courts of appeals have no authority to issue writs of mandamus

in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings under [Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure article 11.07].”). To the extent that Jones may be seeking relief unrelated

to his post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding, Jones has failed to show that the

trial court has a legal duty to rule on his motion. See Skinner v. State, 305 S.W.3d

593, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“Once general jurisdiction has expired, and absent

direction from a higher court, a trial court can act only if, and to the extent, it is

authorized to do so by a specific statutory source.”).

To obtain mandamus relief, the relator must show that he seeks to compel a

ministerial act involving no discretion, and he has no adequate remedy at law. In re

State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (orig. proceeding).

2
Jones failed to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny

the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 25, 2024
Opinion Delivered June 26, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

3