 
 




                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                          ____________________
                             NO. 09-14-00043-CR
                          ____________________



                        IN RE LAGARY HARRISON


_______________________________________________________          ______________

                              Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________          _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Lagary Harrison seeks mandamus relief against the trial court for failing to

rule on a motion that was filed in a criminal case long after his conviction was

final. We deny mandamus relief.

      We affirmed Harrison’s conviction for aggravated sexual assault in 2002.

See Harrison v. State, No. 09-00-372 CR, 2002 WL 1339918, at *1, 6 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont June 19, 2002, no pet.). The Court of Criminal Appeals denied

Harrison’s application for writ of habeas corpus without issuing a written order.

See Ex parte Harrison, WR-67,318-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 5, 2011), available

                                        1
 
 
 




at     http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/EventInfo.asp?EventID=2460870.

On December 3, 2013, Harrison filed a petition for writ of mandamus in his long-

final criminal case. Through his mandamus petition, Harrison sought to force the

prosecutor to respond to Harrison’s Open Records Act request for access to the

prosecutor’s file.   See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 552.028 (West 2012).            The

prosecutor had refused Harrison’s request.         See id. § 552.028(a)(1). (“A

governmental body is not required to accept or comply with a request for

information from: (1) an individual who is imprisoned or confined in a correctional

facility[.]”).

       On January 29, 2014, Harrison filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this

Court. He contends that the trial court failed in its ministerial duty to rule on

Harrison’s mandamus petition. Because the trial court is empowered to decide

issues over which the court has jurisdiction, “consideration of a motion properly

filed and before the court is ministerial.” State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d

125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig. proceeding) (op. on reh’g). Id. After the

trial court loses plenary jurisdiction, the exercise of jurisdiction is limited to

specific functions authorized by statute or through the appellate process. See State

v. Holloway, 360 S.W.3d 480, 484-85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (orig. proceeding).

Mandamus relief is not available to compel the trial court to rule on a motion that

                                         2
 
 
 




is filed after the judgment becomes final. See, e.g., Rabel v. Grace, 335 S.W.2d

227, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960) (orig. proceeding).

      Harrison’s mandamus petition was not filed as an independent suit or as part

of a post-conviction procedure in which the trial court has the authority to act. He

has not shown that the matter is properly filed and before the trial court. We deny

the petition for writ of mandamus.

      PETITION DENIED.


                                                               PER CURIAM



Opinion Delivered February 19, 2014
Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.




                                          3
 
