In Re Antonio Jones Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-23-00077-CR __________________ IN RE ANTONIO JONES __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 20-34587, 20-34266 & 20-34008 ________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Antonio Jones filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. We notified Jones of certain defects in his petition. In his amended mandamus petition, Jones makes conclusory statements that he has been deprived of a pretrial detention hearing, that the trial court failed to follow article 15.17 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, that the trial court denied a bail request, that the trial court violated Jones’s rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution in a manner not described in the petition, and that double jeopardy is implicated for reasons not explained in the petition. 1 To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law and that he seeks to compel a ministerial act. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). The relator must provide the Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(h), (k), 52.7(a)(1). Jones failed to provide a record of certified or sworn documents sufficient to support his mandamus petition. Jones failed to supply argument and supporting authority for his bare complaints. We conclude Jones has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on April 11, 2023 Opinion Delivered April 12, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ. 2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.
