In Re Robert Devon Henson 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. 09-23-00188-CR __________________ IN RE ROBERT DEVON HENSON __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 22-39601 and 22-39602 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, a petition that Robert Devon Henson filed as an original proceeding with this Court, Henson seeks to compel the trial court to grant the motions he filed to dismiss the indictments currently pending against him in Trial Court Cause Numbers 22-39601 and 22-39602. 1 According to Henson, his prosecution 1Relator signed the petition as “Robert D. Hinson.” According to the indictments, “ROBERT DEVON HENSON AKA ROBERT HENSON AKA ROBERT HINSON” is the relator’s alleged name. For consistency, we use Relator’s name as it appears in his indictments. 1 for the offenses alleged in both of the indictments are barred by the statute of limitations applicable to felonies. 2 A relator seeking mandamus relief in a criminal case must establish two things: (1) that he has no other remedy at law, and (2) that the act he seeks to compel is ministerial. 3 Henson has not shown the trial court has a ministerial duty to address his pro se motions. 4 Moreover, were Henson to be convicted of an offense that is barred by limitations, an appeal would provide Henson with an adequate remedy to the issue he raises in his petition. 5 For these reasons, we conclude that Henson has not shown he is entitled to relief on the argument and the evidence he presented to support his petition. PETITION DENIED. Submitted on July 11, 2023 Opinion Delivered July 12, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ. PER CURIAM Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 12.01. 3Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (orig. proceeding). 4See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel”). 5Smith, 962 S.W.2d at 592. 2 2See
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.
