Opinion
NO. 09-12-00343-CR
09-12-2012
IN RE ANTHONY EUGENE CARROLL
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Anthony Eugene Carroll seeks to compel the trial court to order the State to provide a copy of the videographic recording of a forensic interview with the child complainant in a prosecution for indecency with a child. We deny mandamus relief.
The parties executed a discovery agreement that provided the recording could not be duplicated but could be reviewed by the defense, and that in exchange for the State's open file policy Carroll waived the right to file motions for discovery. Carroll did file a motion for discovery; the parties dispute whether Carroll or the State breached the discovery agreement. Carroll subsequently filed a motion to compel the State to give him a DVD of the forensic interview. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 39.14(a) (West Supp. 2012). In response, the State contended the requested production was not authorized. See id.; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 39.15 (West Supp. 2012). After holding hearings on the motion and response, the trial court denied the motion.
Carroll contends the trial court had no discretion and had to grant the motion. For authority, he cites a case in which the trial court compelled the State to produce pre-trial discovery. See In re Dist. Attorney's Office of 25th Judicial Dist., 358 S.W.3d 244, 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (holding the discretion of the trial court in matters of discovery includes the discretion to exercise the statutory authority to order production of evidence for inspection and copying). In this case, however, the trial court's order does not compel pre-trial production of evidence. See Dickens v. Court of Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial Dist., 727 S.W.2d 542, 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (holding the court of appeals erred in granting mandamus relief to a defendant seeking pre-trial discovery). "In a criminal case, a defendant's normal method for challenging pretrial orders is through appeal." Id. at 550. As was the case in Dickens, Carroll "can seek direct review of [the] pretrial order on appeal. An appeal provides him with a forum in which he can fully develop his claim and receive a meaningful review." Id. Carroll has not shown that direct appeal would be an inadequate remedy. Further, the record does not reflect Carroll requested the trial court to enforce the parties' agreement that he be allowed to view the recording, and he gives no explanation why the parties should not be bound by their discovery agreement in this case. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We express no opinion regarding the merits of the motions and rulings in the trial court.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.