Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-26-00393-CR __________________ IN RE CHRISTOPHER READ WINDHAM __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24DCCR1937 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Christopher Read Windham filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and, in the Alternative, Writ of Prohibition against the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. We deny the petition. At his request, Windham was transferred from federal custody to Jefferson County pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 51.14, art. III. The indictments on which the detainer had been lodged were dismissed after Windham was not tried within the 180-day time limit. See id. art. III(a). 1 In Trial Cause Number 24DCCR1937, the State indicted Windham on a charge of aggravated sexual assault for conduct that was not charged in any of the indictments on which the State lodged a detainer. Windham filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, which the trial court denied on September 9, 2025. On September 24, 2026, more than a year after the trial court denied Windham’s motion to dismiss, Windham filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate the September 9, 2025 order denying the motion to dismiss Trial Cause Number 24DCCR1937 “to the extent that ruling permits trial without applying Article V(d) and Article V(e)[,]” or in the alternative to prohibit the trial court from trying Windham for an offense that is not from the same transaction as the offenses which form the basis of the detainer without first obtaining Relator’s presence “through lawful independent process consistent with Articles V(d) and V(e).” See id. art. V(d), V(e). Windham concedes the 180-day period for commencing a trial and the corresponding dismissal requirement are limited to the charges on which the detainer is lodged. See State v. Votta, 299 S.W.3d 130, 135-38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (holding the lower court erred in dismissing charges for bail jumping and failure to appear where nothing in the record indicated detainers were filed for those charges). He argues the State should not be allowed to use custody obtained under the 2 Interstate Agreement on Detainers when the original detainer prosecutions have ended. Mandamus “might be an appropriate remedy” for the denial of a motion to dismiss for violating the Interstate Agreement on Detainers “[i]f the trial court rules against the defendant and the defendant’s entitlement to relief is indisputable, as a matter of fact and law[.]” Ex parte Doster, 303 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). After reviewing the petition and record, we conclude that Windham has not established that he has an indisputable right to relief and that appeal will not be an adequate remedy. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on October 6, 2026 Opinion Delivered October 7, 2026 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ. 3