Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-26-00398-CR __________________ IN RE SURAFEL HAILU SOLOMON __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. F22-39310-0, F22-39311-0, and F22-39312-0 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Surafel Hailu Solomon filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Solomon complains that he filed a Motion to Dismiss for Want of a Speedy Trial in February 2025, and since that date his cases have been set on the trial docket but have been repeatedly re-set after they were not reached for trial. Solomon asks this Court to compel the trial court to rule on Solomon’s Motion to Dismiss for Want of a Speedy Trial “alongside all other unresolved motions filed in this action.” Generally, pretrial hearings are not mandatory in criminal cases. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 28.01, § 1 (“The court may set any criminal case for a pre-trial hearing before it is set for trial upon its merits . . . .”). Article 28.01 “is not mandatory upon the court but is directed to the court’s discretion.” Hicks v. State, 1 508 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). In particular, a motion to dismiss a case for want of a speedy trial need not be ruled upon prior to trial because the movant has an adequate remedy by appeal. See Ex parte Sheffield, 685 S.W.3d 86, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (“The remedy for a violation of a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial is dismissal and, if dismissal is wrongly denied, appellate review after trial and conviction.”). Solomon did not ask this Court to compel the trial court to try the State’s cases against Solomon. See id. (“If trial and appellate review are indefinitely postponed, vindication of the speedy trial right should be had via petition for writ of mandamus, not by pretrial writ of habeas corpus.”). “To obtain extraordinary relief, Relator must show that 1) he has no adequate remedy at law, and 2) what he seeks to compel or prohibit is ministerial, involving no discretion.” In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (citing State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). Solomon has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on October 27, 2026 Opinion Delivered October 28, 2026 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ. 2