Opinion
No. 14-10-00924-CR
Opinion filed October 7, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Original Proceeding Writ of Mandamus.
Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, FROST, and BROWN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 27, 2010, relator Thomas Florence filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the "court" to "order a factfinding or probable cause hearing, order the State to produce the Febuary [sic] 26, 2010; Febuary [sic] 27, 2010 hospital records from Ben Taub to this court." Relator further requests that this court "order petitioner released squash [sic] invalid indictment with prejudice." To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig.proceeding). Consideration of a motion that is properly filed and before the court is a ministerial act. State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig.proceeding). A relator must establish the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so. In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.-Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding) (relator must show that trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on motion). Absent a showing the trial court is aware of and been asked to rule on relator's request, relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.