Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021

in Re Darrell Lewis

in Re Darrell Lewis
Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided June 9, 2021
in Re Darrell Lewis

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO. 09-21-00110-CR __________________

IN RE DARRELL LEWIS

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 163rd District Court of Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A190682-R __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Darrell Lewis asks this Court to compel the 163rd District Court of Orange County to rule on a motion for final disposition that Lewis claims he filed pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA). 1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 51.14, art. III. Lewis states that he is currently in federal custody, and he concedes the State had not lodged an official detainer against him.

Lewis “has the obligation to provide us with a record showing that a properly filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable period of time.” Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). A relator must file a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to his claim for relief. 2 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7. Lewis failed to establish that he properly filed a motion with the trial court that has awaited disposition for an unreasonable length of time. See Bates, 65 S.W.3d at 136. He also has not shown that the trial court failed to perform a ministerial act required by the IADA. See generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 51.14, art. III. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus without prejudice.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM Submitted on June 8, 2021 Opinion Delivered June 9, 2021 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

1 Relator states that he has filed a motion for final disposition under the IADA, a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. However, he does not state whether the motions were filed by counsel, pro se while he was represented by counsel, or pro se while he was not represented by counsel. 2 Depending upon the facts, documents that may be material to a complaint that the trial court allegedly failed to rule on a properly filed motion might include, without limitation, the indictment or information charging the defendant with an offense, the docket sheet, an order appointing counsel or allowing pro se representation, any motion or petition that is the subject of the complaint, any document that demonstrates how the defendant brought the request for a ruling to the attention of the trial court, and any document the defendant claims functions as a detainer under the IADA.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.