SHANNON MARK DOUTHIT, Relator v. PRESIDIO COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, Respondent (Other)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-61,864-04 SHANNON MARK DOUTHIT, Relator v. PRESIDIO COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, Respondent ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS CAUSE NOS. 2076 & 2102 IN THE 394TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FROM PRESIDIO COUNTY Per curiam. ORDER Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed applications for writs of habeas corpus regarding two cause numbers in the 394th Judicial District Court of Presidio County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that these applications have not yet been forwarded to this Court. On January 18, 2012, this Court issued an order advising the respondent, the District Clerk of Presidio County to answer Relator s claim. On February 13, 2012, Respondent sent this Court an application for writ of habeas corpus filed by Applicant in December of 2006 in cause number 2076. That application was decided by this Court in our writ number WR-61,864-02. The instant mandamus application is relating to habeas applications filed in 2010 & 2011. Relator sent a copy of a writ application for cause number 2076 to the Honorable Curt Steib, who then forwarded it to Respondent with a cover letter dated April 5, 2010. Relator also alleges that he filed an initial habeas application in cause number 2102 on June 15, 2011. The District Clerk should respond specifically regarding these two writ applications. In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. The respondent, the District Clerk of Presidio County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by: submitting the records on such habeas corpus applications; submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be investigated, see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); or stating that Relator has not filed applications for habeas corpus in Presidio County since the last one received by this Court in 2008. Should the response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney s office was served with the habeas application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until the respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order. Filed: March 28, 2012 Do not publish
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
