Opinion
No. 14-09-00843-CR
Opinion filed November 3, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices SEYMORE and SULLIVAN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 07, 2009, relator, John Whitson, 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 Honorable Jim Wallace, presiding judge of the 263rd District Court of Harris County, to grant relator's motion for "nunc pro tunc" and his motion for appointment of counsel in an unspecified underlying proceeding. As an initial matter, relator's petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (requiring party to file affidavit of indigence to proceed in appellate court without advance payment of costs); Id. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring relator to file certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to his claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding). Notwithstanding these deficiencies, relator cannot prevail on his request for mandamus relief. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that 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) (op. on reh'g). However, the trial court generally has no ministerial duty to rule a certain way on such motion. State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Here, the trial court's ruling on either the motion for "nunc pro tunc" or the motion for the appointment of counsel will involve a discretionary or judicial decision. Therefore, we cannot compel the trial court to grant relator's motion for "nunc pro tunc" or his motion for the appointment of counsel. Relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief available through a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition.