Texas Supreme Court, 1991

Creel v. District Attorney Ex Rel. Medina County

Texas Supreme Court · Decided October 30, 1991 · No. D-1291 · Per Curiam

818 S.W.2d 45; 35 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 76; 1991 Tex. LEXIS 126; 1991 WL 218781 (South Western Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

39 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Finlan v. Peavy (Tex. App. 2006)
Huffmaster, Troy (Tex. App. 2015)
Johnson v. Sloan (Tex. App. 2010)
R. Wayne Johnson v. Paul Sloan, Janet Sells, Kenneth Holt, Robbie Stone, Kendall Rickerson, V.L. Brisher, and Deanna Davis (Tex. App. 2010)
Guy Sparkman v. Microsoft Corporation, SupportSpace, Inc. as Agent for Microsoft Corp., Omar Franco, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Robert Doe, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Karen Phillips (Tex. App. 2015)
Wesley Spears and Renee Jacobs v. Falcon Pointe Community Homeowner's Association (Tex. App. 2015)
Haley Brown v. RK Hall Construction, LTD., RKH Capital, LLC, and Stacy Lyon D/B/A Lyon Barricade & Construction (Tex. Crim. App. 2015)
in Re Bryan Chance McBee (Tex. App. 2015)
Harvella Jones v. Marc D. Markel, Clayton R. Hearn, Amy M. Vanhoose, Dawn S. Holiday, Clinton Faver Brown and Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey, PC AKA Roberts Markel Weinberg PC AKA Roberts Markel PC (Tex. App. 2015)
R. Wayne Johnson v. Paul Sloan, Janet Sells, Kenneth Holt, Robbie Stone, Kendall Rickerson, V.L. Brisher, and Deanna Davis (Tex. App. 2010)
In re Christensen (Tex. App. 2000)
in Re: Christopher Gerald Christensen (Tex. App. 2000)
In re Phyllis McRae, Relator v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025)
In re Regency Nursing Center Partners of Edinburg Ltd. v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2025)
In re Edrick Dunn, Relator v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2024)
in Re Anthony D. James, Relator (Tex. App. 2020)
in Re Steven Boyd, Relator (Tex. App. 2019)
in Re Robert Matthew Villarreal (Tex. App. 2015)
Jackson, Leonard Ray (Tex. 2015)
Haley Brown v. RK Hall Construction, LTD., RKH Capital, LLC, and Stacy Lyon D/B/A Lyon Barricade & Construction (Tex. Crim. App. 2015)
in Re Joseph Di Ruzzo (Tex. App. 2014)
in Re Greater McAllen Star Properties, Inc., Marilyn Hardison, and Jasen Hardison (Tex. App. 2014)
in Re First Mercury Insurance Company (Tex. App. 2013)
in Re Darrin Scott (Tex. App. 2013)
Columbus Eric Johnson Sr. v. Orange River Royalties, LLP (Tex. App. 2012)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the Texas Open Records Act (the Act), Creel filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court to compel the Medina County District Attorney to release a copy of a public document. The trial court sua sponte dismissed Creel’s petition. The court of appeals affirmed. 804 S.W.2d 628, (1991). Because Creel was denied due process of law, we reverse and remand.

Creel was indicted on felony charges in both Bexar and Medina Counties. AH charges stemmed from the same criminal episode. After he was successfully prosecuted in Bexar County, the Medina County charges were dismissed. Thereafter, Creel sought to obtain documents relative to the dismissed charges from the Medina County District Attorney. Whether the Medina County records were open and available for inspection was decided in Creel v. Sheriff of Medina County and Creel v. District Attorney for Medina County, 751 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1988, no writ), (Creel I). There, the court held that the records were in fact public records and open to inspection and duplication.

Based on the judgment and order in Creel I, Petitioner filed a motion for enforcement of the judgment. The trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether there had been compliance consistent with Creel I. At the hearing, the trial court heard evidence from the district attorney who advised the court that his office was in full compliance and that the file was available for inspection. The district attorney asserted that only Creel’s incarceration stood in the way of inspection and duplication. The trial court concurred and determined that the district attorney had complied with the order. In an unpublished opinion, Creel II, the court of appeals affirmed.

The record in the current action reveals that subsequent to the judicial determination that the records were open, Creel requested a certified copy of a specific document from the district attorney’s file — a “motion to take hair samples.” Creel's request contained an offer of remittance pursuant to subsection 9(a) of the Act, but he never received the document. See Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-17a, § 9(a) (Vernon Supp. 1991). Based upon the district attorney’s apparent refusal to honor his request, Creel filed a petition for writ of *46 mandamus in order to force the release of the document. Without notice or hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition, and rendered the issue of the district attorney’s compliance moot. The court of appeals agreed, and held that Creel I and Creel II had already established the public nature of the records and that Creel’s remedy was therefore complete. 1

The dispositive issue in this cause is whether it was a denial of due process for the trial court to summarily dismiss Creel’s petition absent either notice or hearing. Fundamental requirements of due process demand an opportunity to be heard. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62, 66 (1965). Consequently, the issue of whether the district attorney’s compliance was moot must still be decided pursuant to notice and hearing. The trial court acted improperly when it summarily dismissed Creel’s petition for writ of mandamus. 2 We therefore grant Creel’s application for writ of error and pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 170, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

. While Creel is not entitled to certified copies, the Act provides for suitable copies of public documents to be produced upon request. See Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. H-305 (1974). Therefore, the district attorney must comply with a reasonable-request for suitable copies. See Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-17a, § 9(c) (Vernon Supp. 1991).

. We note that the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows a court to dismiss actions filed in forma pauperis on a finding that the allegation of poverty is false or the action is frivolous or malicious. See Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 13.001 (Vernon Supp. 1991); see also Johnson v. Lynaugh, 796 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex. 1990). In this case, however, the district court made no such findings. Nor could Creel's request for copies, grounded upon Creel I and the Act, be considered frivolous or malicious.

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