in Re: Roger Dale Hinds, Jr.

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________

No. 06-08-00022-CV ______________________________

IN RE: ROGER DALE HINDS, JR.

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roger Dale Hinds, Jr., an inmate within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional Division, has filed with this Court a petition for writ of mandamus. Hinds asks us to direct the Honorable William R. Porter, presiding judge of the 276th Judicial District Court of Marion County, Texas, to issue a "certificate of appealability" in Hinds' underlying criminal conviction so that he may pursue a direct appeal with this Court. Hinds has provided copies of several documents in support of his petition for the writ. (1) Standard for Mandamus

Mandamus relief is appropriate only when the record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law (which is often described as a "ministerial" act) and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. 1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). "With respect to resolution of factual issues or matters committed to the trial court's discretion, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court." In re State Farm Lloyds, Inc., 170 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding). "The relator must therefore establish that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision." Id. This Court will therefore grant mandamus relief in this case if Hinds can demonstrate that the act sought to be compelled is purely "ministerial" and that he has no other adequate legal remedy. See State ex rel. Rosenthal, 98 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). A remedy is not inadequate merely because it may involve more expense or delay than obtaining an extraordinary writ. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 842. (2) Hinds Is Not Entitled to Relief

The record brought forth by Hinds does not remotely suggest Hinds has previously asked the trial court to issue a "certificate of appealability" in this case.1 Accordingly, we cannot say the record before us affirmatively demonstrates the trial court failed to carry out a ministerial duty.

We deny Hinds' petition for writ of mandamus.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: March 4, 2008

Date Decided: March 5, 2008