Opinion
10-24-00116-CR
05-09-2024
IN RE CHRISTIAN ESQUIVEL
Do not publish
Original Proceeding From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. 30,367
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith (Chief Justice Gray dissenting)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MATT JOHNSON, JUSTICE
In this original proceeding, Relator Christian Esquivel seeks mandamus relief in the form of compelling the Respondent trial judge to hear and rule on his motion and amended motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.
A court with mandamus authority "will grant mandamus relief if relator can demonstrate that the act sought to be compelled is purely 'ministerial' and that relator has no other adequate legal remedy." In re Piper, 105 S.W.3d 107, 109 (Tex. App.-Waco 2003, orig. proceeding) (quoting State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194, 197-99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (orig. proceeding)). Consideration of a motion properly filed and before the trial court is ministerial. State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding). A trial judge has a reasonable time to perform the ministerial duty of considering and ruling on a motion properly filed and before the judge. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). But that duty generally does not arise until the movant has brought the motion to the trial judge's attention, and mandamus will not lie unless the movant makes such a showing, and the trial judge then fails or refuses to rule within a reasonable time. In re Rangel, 570 S.W.3d 968, 969 (Tex. App. -Waco 2019, orig. proceeding); see Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228.
Esquivel bears the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Rangel, 570 S.W.3d at 969; In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). The record here does not show that Esquivel has requested a hearing or ruling on either of the motions in question or that the trial judge has then failed or refused to rule within a reasonable time. Accordingly, we deny Esquivel's petition for writ of mandamus.
Petition denied.
DISSENTING OPINION
TOM GRAY, CHIEF JUSTICE
I would request a response. While the allegations and request for relief are a bit muddled, it is clear that Esquivel filed a motion in August of 2022 for which he has received no ruling. Then, in an effort to get a ruling, he sought to dismiss that motion without prejudice and file a new motion. And because he did not get a ruling on that motion, he wrote to the trial court clerk. I think an appropriately broad reading of the pro se pleadings make it clear that Esquivel has filed a motion and endeavored in an appropriate manner to bring it to the trial court's attention but has received no ruling. He asserts he is entitled to a ruling. Esquivel is clearly not entitled to relief on the second issue, and thus I could concur in the denial of that issue. I would, however, be inclined to request a response from the parties limited to the first issue because after three efforts via letters to the clerk, he still does not have a ruling. We cannot compel what the ruling is, but at some point, he is entitled to a ruling.
See In re Rangel, 570 S.W.3d 968, 970-71 (Tex. App.-Waco 2019, orig. proceeding) (Chief Justice Gray concurring) ("The State, as the real party in interest in this proceeding, and the Court, fault Rangel for not bringing forth any evidence that his motion for post-conviction DNA testing was actually brought to the attention of the trial court. Technically that is correct. But then ask yourself; how exactly is an inmate supposed to do that? It is not like he can take a copy to the trial court's office, courtroom, or home to "serve" the trial court with a copy of the motion. And no matter how many letters the inmate writes, in all likelihood those letters are going straight to a file in the clerk's office. Although those letters may possibly get as far as the court coordinator, they do not necessarily make it to the trial court, even if addressed for delivery only to the trial court judge. But even then, how is the inmate supposed to get any evidence that the trial court was actually made aware of the motion? This Court requested a response from the parties. The trial court is a party, the respondent. We could infer from that procedure the trial court is now aware of the motion. Maybe Rangel can now use this proceeding and that inference to compel a ruling if one is not timely received after this Court's opinion and judgment issue."). In this instance, Esquivel has shown that he sought to bring his motion to the attention of the trial court by writing to the trial court clerk.