Opinion
14-24-00910-CV
12-17-2024
IN RE CHARLES ANTHONY COLBERT, Relator
Do Not Publish - Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 177th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 926096-C
Panel consists of Chief Justice Tracy Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Wilson.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
On November 25, 2024, relator Charles Anthony Colbert 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 Robert Johnson, presiding judge of the 177th District Court of Harris County, to rule on relator's motion requesting a 90-day loan of the trial court records and transcripts, which he claims is pending in the trial court.
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). To establish that a motion was properly filed, "the relator must provide either a file-stamped copy of the motion or other proof that the motion in fact was filed and is pending before the trial court." In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 74 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding).
When seeking mandamus relief for a failure to rule, 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. In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382. It is a relator's burden to provide a sufficient record to establish that relator is entitled to relief. Id. Here, relator has failed to do so. Relator has not attached a file-stamped copy of the motion in question. In the absence of a file-stamped copy of the motion, relator has not established that his motion is actually pending in the trial court.
Even if relator had established that his motion is properly pending, he has not demonstrated that his motion was presented to the trial court for a ruling. See id. Filing a document with the district clerk does not impute the clerk's knowledge of the filing to the trial court. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320, 321-22 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 5, 2019, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106, 107 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, 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.