in Re Anthony Ray Banks

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________

NO. 09-21-00164-CR __________________

IN RE ANTHONY RAY BANKS __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding

252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 67286, 67288 and 64255 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Anthony Ray Banks asks this Court to compel the judge of the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas to rule on the motion Banks filed asking the trial court to compel the attorney who represented him in three criminal cases to release the files he created in the cases to Banks. Even if Banks has been unable to obtain his files, however, his petition fails to show that the trial court cause numbers in which he filed his motion (causes 67286, 67288 and 64255) are still active criminal proceedings in any courts in Jefferson County, including the 252nd District Court.1

“Mandamus relief may be granted if a relator shows that: (1) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial, and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law.” In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). To obtain relief on a petition for mandamus, the petitioner must show that he has a clear legal right to the act that he is seeking to compel. Id. To establish a clear legal right to a ruling on his motion, the petitioner must show the trial court had a legal duty that the court failed to discharge by ruling on the motion that is the subject of the petitioner’s motion, that the petitioner asked the trial court to rule on his motion, and the trial court failed or refused to do so within a reasonable time. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320, 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding).

Trial courts do not retain general jurisdiction over cases after the plenary jurisdiction that courts have over a specific case expires. Skinner v. State, 305 S.W.3d 593, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). “Once general jurisdiction has expired, and absent direction from a higher court, a trial court can act only if, and to the extent, it is authorized to do so by a specific statutory source.” Id. Here, the judge presiding over the 252nd District Court had no duty or jurisdiction to rule on Banks’ free-floating motion given that he has failed to establish that it is related to cases that are still pending in that court. See In re Cash, No. 06-04-00045-CV, 2004 WL 769473, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 13, 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

We conclude that Banks failed to establish he has a right to relief.

Accordingly, we deny his petition.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM Submitted on June 22, 2021

Opinion Delivered June 23, 2021

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.