From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mccree v. Hampton

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Feb 5, 1992
824 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)

Summary

denying mandamus relief when petitioner sought to compel trial court to act on petition for writ of habeas corpus

Summary of this case from In re Martin

Opinion

No. 71384.

February 5, 1992.

Willis Earl McCree, pro se.

Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for State.

Before the court en banc.


OPINION


This is an application for an original writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent to act on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in respondent's court pursuant to Article 11.07, Sec. 2, et seq., on February 15, 1991. In his petition applicant seeks compliance with the statute which requires action within thirty-five days of filing.

On November 20, 1991, this Court entered an order requiring a response from respondent in which it was required that the reasons for delay be explained. On November 27, 1991, the reply was received in this Court. We find that the reasons given by respondent adequately explain the delay in this case. Further, the application for a writ of habeas corpus which was the subject of this mandamus action has been received by this Court. Therefore, it appears that the relief sought by applicant in the application for mandamus relief has been obtained and the application is moot.

However, we take this opportunity to point out that the statute under which applicant originally filed for relief is very restrictive in its directions to the trial courts of the State. The Legislature provided a total of thirty-five days in which the State may respond to the petition and in which the trial court may determine whether there are controverted, previously unresolved facts to be resolved, and, if there are such issues, to enter an order designating those issues for resolution. Article 11.07, Sec. 2(b) and (c), V.A.C.C.P. There is no authority granted the trial courts to extend the time limits without the entry of such an order. Art. 11.07, Sec. 2(d), V.A.C.C.P. Accordingly, the trial courts of the State are directed to ensure compliance with the statute either by completing all work required within the specified time limits or by entering the order referred to above.

With these comments, we grant leave to file the original application for a writ of mandamus. All relief requested is, however, denied.


Summaries of

Mccree v. Hampton

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Feb 5, 1992
824 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)

denying mandamus relief when petitioner sought to compel trial court to act on petition for writ of habeas corpus

Summary of this case from In re Martin

filing and setting an application for writ of mandamus but, in the same opinion, denying relief because the relief sought had already been obtained

Summary of this case from Mau v. Third Court of Appeals (In re State)

filing and setting an application for writ of mandamus but, in the same opinion, denying relief because the relief sought had already been obtained

Summary of this case from Mau v. Third Court of Appeals (In re State)

reasoning that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to order the trial court to rule on applicant's post-conviction writ of habeas corpus.

Summary of this case from In re Hawkins

ordering trial court to rule on applicant's post-conviction writ of habeas corpus

Summary of this case from In re Carter

considering application for original writ of mandamus to compel trial judge to act on a petition filed pursuant to article 11.07

Summary of this case from In re McAfee
Case details for

Mccree v. Hampton

Case Details

Full title:Willis Earl McCREE, Applicant, v. Jack HAMPTON, Judge, 283rd District…

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Feb 5, 1992

Citations

824 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Wallace v. Brazos Dist. Clerk

Id. Article 11.07 does not authorize the trial court to extend the time limitations imposed by the statute,…

State v. Morin

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072. Because the State's answer to appellee's application was filed on May…