In re Ricky Lee Meredith

December 18, 2007
Civil Causes Decided:
MOTION OR WRIT DENIED: Opinion by Justice Henson (Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)

In re Ricky Lee Meredith--Appeal from 368th District Court of Williamson County

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Meredith has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to conduct a hearing on Meredith's post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2007). A hearing is required, however, only if the district court determines that there are controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the legality of Meredith's confinement, and even then the court may resolve the fact issues by means other than a hearing. Id. art. 11.07, § 3(c), (d). The conduct of a hearing by the district court is not a ministerial duty that can be compelled by mandamus. See Deleon v. District Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Moreover, we have determined that Meredith's writ application was forwarded to the court of criminal appeals, where it was denied without written order on the basis of the district court's findings. Ex parte Meredith, No. WR-67,944-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 10, 2007).

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). (1)
__________________________________________
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Filed: December 18, 2007

1. Meredith's motion for production of evidence is dismissed.

Austin Appeals Court accepts Board of Pardons and Paroles' assurance that records will be preserved, and denies mandamus relief

In re Kelly Stinson, No. (Tex.App.- Austin, Aug. 14, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Henson)(mandamus denied)(Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson)
Appeal from 261st District Court of Travis County

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Kelly Stinson petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to act on his motion to protect documents in State custody that are the subject of pending litigation. Counsel for the Board of Pardons and Paroles, the real party in interest, has assured the Court that the documents are either not subject to or are exempt from the two-year destruction provision of the records retention schedule. Counsel assures the Court that all documents in question will be maintained. With this assurance, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
__________________________________________
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson
Filed: August 14, 2007