In Re John A. Fedick v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
Date FiledOctober 7, 2026
Docket09-26-00388-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-26-00388-CR
__________________
IN RE JOHN A. FEDICK
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
411th District Court of San Jacinto County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 12852
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John A. Fedick filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. He asks the appellate
court to compel the trial court to order the trial court clerk to provide Fedick with a
copy of the case file in Trial Cause Number 12852 for his use in preparing an
application for a writ of habeas corpus. Fedick states that he sent a request for an
“ind[i]gent copy of trial transcript” to the San Jacinto County District Clerk on
February 23, 2026.
To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that he
has no adequate remedy at law and what he seeks to compel is ministerial, involving
1
no discretion. In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)
(orig. proceeding).
“Although they have rights to appointed counsel and a free trial record on
direct appeal, indigent defendants do not have those rights for discretionary review
of a decision of the court of appeals, nor for collateral attacks on their convictions.”
In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding)
(citations omitted). In exercising his constitutional right to access the courts, an
indigent inmate has a right to be informed of the amount it would cost to obtain a
transcript of his case for his use in preparing an application for a writ of habeas
corpus. Id. at 533-34. In this case, however, Fedick has not shown that he asked for
information regarding the cost of the record. Instead, he requested a free record.
Fedick has not shown that he is entitled to the relief sought in his mandamus
petition. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on October 6, 2026
Opinion Delivered October 7, 2026
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
2