In re David Christopher Phillips Appeal from 56th District Court of Galveston County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November 16, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-21-00620-CR NO. 14-21-00621-CR NO. 14-21-00622-CR NO. 14-21-00623-CR NO. 14-21-00624-CR IN RE DAVID CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 21CR2314, 21CR2315, 21CR2316, 21CR2317, & 21CR2318 MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 1, 2021, relator David Christopher Phillips filed five petitions for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In each petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Lonnie Cox, presiding judge of the 56th District Court of Galveston County, to grant relator an examining trial in the respective trial court cause number. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 16.01. In each petition, relator asserts that he “was never given an examining trial” prior to the issuance of an indictment by the “Grand Jurors for the County of Galveston” on October 14, 2021. Relator contends this violated his constitutional rights. A defendant’s right to an examining trial is ended by the return of an indictment. State ex rel. Holmes v. Salinas, 784 S.W.2d 421, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); see also In re Richardson, No. 14-04-00713, 2004 WL 1797589, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 12, 2004, orig. proceeding). “Due process considerations are not implicated since the primary purpose for the examining trial, a determination of probable cause, is at least as timely accomplished by presenting evidence directly to the grand jury.” Salinas, 784 S.W.2d at 427. Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petitions for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 2

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.