                                     In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              _________________

                              NO. 09-13-00423-CR
                              _________________

                           IN RE ERNEST MARTIN

__________________________________________________________________

                         Original Proceeding
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relator Ernest Martin filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court

to compel the trial court to address his motion to compel his defense attorney at

trial to produce his defense file for Martin’s use in filing a petition for writ of

habeas corpus with the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2012).

      To obtain mandamus relief, Martin must show that he has a clear legal right

to the act sought to be compelled. See Banales v. Court of Appeals for the

Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 93 S.W.3d 33, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Generally,

consideration of a properly filed motion is ministerial. See State ex rel. Curry v.

Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). However, Martin has not


                                        1
shown that an active proceeding exists before the convicting court, since the

judgment became final before he filed the motion that is the subject of his petition

for mandamus. Habeas corpus proceedings under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code

of Criminal Procedure provide the exclusive post-conviction remedy for Martin’s

complaints. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07.

      Relator has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See

State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2001) (To demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus, a relator

must establish that the trial court failed to perform a ministerial duty, and that

relator has no other adequate legal remedy.). Accordingly, we deny relief on the

petition for writ of mandamus.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                          PER CURIAM



Opinion Delivered October 16, 2013
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.




                                         2
