Clark v. Barr, 01-91-01007-CV
| Decision Date | 19 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-91-01007-CV,01-91-01007-CV |
| Parties | Robert L. CLARK, Relator, v. The Honorable Jim BARR, Judge of the 337th District Court of Harris County, Texas and Katherine Tyra, District Clerk of Harris County, Texas, Respondents. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Loren A. Detamore, Houston, for relator.
John B. Holmes, Houston, for respondents.
Before WILSON, DUGGAN and MIRABAL, JJ.
Relator, Robert L. Clark, seeks mandamus relief from this Court to compel respondent, Judge Jim Barr, to set a pretrial bond in an amount relator can afford, or, in the alternative, to compel Judge Barr to allow relator an appeal from his order denying relator's motion to reduce his bond. Relator also requests this Court to compel Judge Barr to direct respondent, Katherine Tyra, and the court reporter to prepare an appellate record from the bail proceeding.
In an opinion dated November 26, 1991, this Court overruled relator's motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. After relator filed a motion for rehearing, we granted that motion, withdrew our November 26, 1991, opinion, and granted relator's motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. We also set briefing schedules in the mandamus proceeding. The respondents have not filed a brief. We now conditionally grant the writ.
Relator is incarcerated under an indictment for delivery of a controlled substance. Pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 44(a), relator timely filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's order denying relator's motion to reduce his bond. The trial court "denied" relator's notice of appeal, and the district clerk has not prepared a transcript of the bond proceedings, and forwarded it to this Court.
A party may obtain a writ of mandamus if he can establish that the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial, and that he has no other adequate remedy at law. Homan v. Hughes, 708 S.W.2d 449, 452 (Tex.Crim.App.1986, orig. proceeding). Mandamus will issue to compel vacation of an improper order refusing permission to appeal when the relator has the right to an appeal. See Homan, 708 S.W.2d at 452-53.
Here, the relator has the right to an appeal from the trial court's order denying his motion to reduce bond. See Primrose v. State, 725 S.W.2d 254, 256 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (); TEX.R.APP.P. 44(a); see also Ex parte Reese, 666 S.W.2d 675, 677 n. 2 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1984, pet. ref'd). Mandamus will lie to compel the trial court to vacate the improper order refusing permission to appeal. See Homan, 708 S.W.2d at 452. Therefore, relator is entitled to mandamus relief.
Relator requests this Court to set bond...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Shumake
... ... Appellant also relies upon Clark v. Barr, 827 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.) to support his right to ... ...
-
Sanchez v. State
...WL 468310, at *1 (Tex.App.-Tyler Feb. 28, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ramos, 89 S.W.3d at 126; Clark v. Barr, 827 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). And three others have stated in dicta that such interlocutory orders are an......
-
Ramos v. State
...that the First Court of Appeals is the "only court which has expressly followed Primrose." Benford, 994 S.W.2d at 409 (citing Clark v. Barr, 827 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding)). The Benford court noted, however, that "[t]he Fort Worth and Dallas courts......
-
McCarver v. State
... ... First Court of Appeals had approved a direct appeal of a denial of a motion to reduce bond in Clark v. Barr, 827 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ)) ... The ... ...
-
Table of cases
...State , 146 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), §11:127 Chatham v. State , 646 S.W.2d 512 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1982), §11:81 Clark v. Barr , 827 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992), §15:04 Clark v. State , 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5973 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012), §9:72 Clay v. State , 1......
-
Table of cases
...State , 146 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), §11:127 Chatham v. State , 646 S.W.2d 512 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1982), §11:81 Clark v. Barr , 827 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992), §15:04 Clark v. State , 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5973 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012), §9:72 Clay v. State , 1......
-
DWI Bond & Jail Release
...(Tex.App.—Austin 1997, no pet.).] On the other hand, some courts have expressly recognized jurisdiction. [See, e.g., Clark v. Barr , 827 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992).] Courts that recognize jurisdiction view the “notice of appeal” (under rule of appellate procedure 31.1 fr......
-
Bond & Jail Release Considerations
...(Tex.App.—Austin 1997, no pet.).] On the other hand, some courts have expressly recognized jurisdiction. [See, e.g., Clark v. Barr , 827 S.W.2d 556 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992).] Courts that recognize jurisdiction view the “notice of appeal” (under rule of appellate procedure 31.1 fr......