In re Nicholas V. Blair, Relator (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-22-00234-CR IN RE NICHOLAS V. BLAIR, RELATOR OPINION ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS August 18, 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Pending before the Court is a pro se petition for writ of mandamus by Nicholas V. Blair concerning “an order made by Magistrate Judge Jones on June 8th, 2022.” Said order purportedly reveals the intent of Judge Jones to refuse “setting a bond” or evinces entry of “a no bond order.” We deny the petition for the following reasons. Blair did not accompany his petition with a copy of the order about which he complains. Such was required by applicable rule of appellate procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (stating that an appendix must contain a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of). Second, because we have not seen the order complained of, we cannot determine if it is properly reviewable by mandamus. That is, an order denying an application for pretrial habeas corpus relief by release on personal bond or bail reduction is reviewable by appeal. See In re Rodriguez, No. 07-17-00079-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 2343, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 20, 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.). If the alleged order at bar depicts action upon such a pretrial habeas corpus application, then Blair has an available legal remedy through appeal. The availability of such a remedy would mean he cannot obtain relief through a petition for writ of mandamus. See id. Consequently, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus at this juncture. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2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.
