IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00368-CV IN RE LARECE SATESE WYATT

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION Larece Satese Wyatt has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order from this Court directing the Honorable Matt Johnson of the 54th Judicial District Court to grant Wyatt’s motion that sought relief from being forced to pay court-appointed attorney’s fees.1 Wyatt asserts that the funds are being improperly deducted from his inmate account because he was previously determined to be indigent.

The petition for writ of mandamus has several procedural deficiencies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. It also lacks a proper proof of service; a copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties to the proceeding and must contain proof of service. Id. at 9.5. Because of our disposition and to expedite it, however, we will implement Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 and suspend these rules in this proceeding.

Id. at 2.

Mandamus relief will be granted only when the record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840-41 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). Wyatt has an adequate remedy at law because the proper method to attack the trial court’s order is through a direct appeal, not by way of a petition for writ of mandamus. See Ex parte Knight, 401 S.W.3d 60, 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding); see also Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 (Tex. 2009).

Accordingly, we deny Wyatt’s petition for writ of mandamus.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Mandamus denied Opinion delivered and filed November 27, 2019 [OT06]

In re Wyatt Page 2