In Re: Joe Henry Deckard, Jr.--Appeal from 3rd District Court of Anderson County

NO. 12-08-00086-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: JOE HENRY DECKARD, JR.,

RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joe Henry Deckard, Jr. seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to set a reasonable bond or to give notice and charges if an indictment has been issued. 1 In support of his request, Deckard alleges that the State issued an arrest warrant for him on December 14, 2007 for an offense and charge unknown. He further states that he has been held in custody for over one year without notice of the charges against him, the return of any indictment, or any evidence to justify his confinement.2 We deny the petition.

Initially, we note that Deckard has not complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52, which sets out the requisites for filing an original proceeding such as mandamus. Rule 52.3, subsections (a) through (j), prescribes the form and contents of a mandamus petition. Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(a)-(j). Rule 52.7(a) describes the items that must be included in the record filed with the petition. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a). Deckard has failed to satisfy several of these requirements. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(a)-(f), 52.3(j), 52.7(a).

Moreover, in a criminal case, mandamus relief is authorized only if the relator establishes that (1) he has no other adequate legal remedy and (2) under the facts and the law, the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial. State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). A defendant may raise by pretrial habeas corpus claims concerning unlawful confinement. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.23 (Vernon 2005) (writ of habeas corpus intended to be applicable to all cases of illegal confinement and restraint); see also In re Shaw, 204 S.W.3d 9, 14 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2006, pet. ref d) (matters of bail properly raised by pretrial habeas). Deckard asserts he is illegally confined in the Anderson County Jail. That complaint is properly raised by pretrial habeas corpus. Because his claim may be raised by pretrial habeas corpus, Deckard cannot show that he has no adequate legal remedy. Accordingly, his petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered February 22, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 The respondents are the Honorable Mark A. Calhoon, Judge of the 3rd Judicial District Court, and the Honorable Pam Foster Fletcher, Judge of the 349th Judicial District Court, Anderson County, Texas.

2 Deckard did not furnish a copy of the arrest warrant or any documentation showing the date of his arrest. Therefore, we are unable to explain the discrepancy between the date of the arrest warrant and the length of time Deckard alleges he has been confined.