Summary
holding that "[m]erely filing the matter with the district clerk does not impute knowledge of the pleading to the trial court."
Summary of this case from In re Gabino-RodriguezOpinion
No. 04-03-00449-CV
Delivered and Filed: June 25, 2003
Arising from trial court cause nos. 1999-CR-000137-d-3 and 1999-CR-000175-d-3, styled State of Texas v. Arturo Flores, appealed from the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Elma T. Salinas Ender, presiding.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
Sitting: Alma L. LOPEZ, Chief Justice, Paul W. GREEN, Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, relator Arturo Flores seeks to compel the trial court judge to rule on Flores's post-conviction motion to correct the calculation of his jail time credit in the judgment. We deny the requested relief.
A trial court is required to consider and rule upon a motion within a reasonable time. In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). The movant must show that the matter was brought to the attention of the trial court and the trial court failed or refused to rule. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426-27 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). Merely filing the matter with the district or county clerk does not impute knowledge of the pleading to the trial court. In re Heflin, 04-03-00302-CV, 2003 WL 21012595, at *1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, May 7, 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).
There is nothing in Flores's petition or the record to indicate that Flores asked the trial court to set the matter for hearing or otherwise brought his motion to the attention of the trial court judge. Accordingly, Flores has not shown he is entitled to relief. See In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d at 683; Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426-27.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.