TERRY JAMES, Relator v. DALLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS NUMBER 1, Respondent (Other)

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-76,627-02

TERRY JAMES, Relator

v.

DALLAS COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS NUMBER 1, Respondent

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CITY OF DALLAS MUNICIPAL COURT CAUSE NO. J10-06001101

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 he attempted to file with the Dallas County Criminal Court of Appeals Number 1 an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. He states the court would not accept the filing but directed him to file it with the City of Dallas Municipal Court because that court was the court of conviction for the Class C misdemeanor at issue. Relator states he did so but no action was ever taken. He later requested mandamus relief from this Court to direct the Dallas County Criminal Court of Appeals Number 1 to accept his filing, but leave to file was denied pursuant to Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding when an intermediate appellate court and this Court have concurrent, original jurisdiction over an application for a writ of mandamus, the application must first be presented to the court of appeals unless there is a compelling reason not to do so). Relator presented his mandamus application to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, but leave to file was denied in an unpublished memorandum opinion. In re Terry James, No. 05-11-01343-CV (Tex. App. - Dallas del. Oct. 11, 2011). Relator now seeks mandamus relief from this Court after complying with Padilla, supra.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. The respondent, the judge of the Dallas County Criminal Court of Appeals Number 1, is ordered to file a response. In the response, the judge shall state whether Relator attempted to file an Article 11.09 habeas application with the court, and if so, the reason or reasons the filing was not accepted. See Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 480, 482-83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Tex. Gov't Code § 25.0594(a), (f). If the court has accepted the filing so that the application may be considered on its merits by the court, the judge shall so state in 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: January 11, 2012

Do not publish