Opinion
NO. 14-19-00924-CR
12-12-2019
IN RE EDWARD BEALEFIELD, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
176th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1464575A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 19, 2019, relator Edward Bealefield filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Nikita Harmon, presiding judge of the 176th District Court of Harris County, to rule on relator's motions, which relator claims are pending in the trial court.
With certain exceptions not applicable in this case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) what the relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and pending before it, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding).
A relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. Id. It is a relator's burden to provide a sufficient record to establish that relator is entitled to relief. Id. Relator has failed to do so. Relator has not attached any file-stamped copies of the motions in question or provided this court with copies of any filed-stamped motions. In the absence of file-stamped copies of the motions, relator has not established that his motions are actually pending in the trial court.
Even if relator had established that his motions are properly pending, he has not demonstrated that his motions were properly presented to the trial court for rulings. Filing a document with the district clerk does not impute the clerk's knowledge of the filing to the trial court. See In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) ("The mere filing of a motion with the trial court clerk does not equate to a request that the trial court rule on the motion."). The trial court is not required to consider any motion that has not been called to its attention by proper means. See Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382.
Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).