Opinion
05-24-01408-CR 05-24-01409-CR05-24-01410-CR 05-24-01411-CR 05-24-01412-CR
12-09-2024
IN RE JAMES H. GENTRY, Relator
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
Original Proceedings from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 199-81623-07, 199-81624-07, 199-81625-07, 199-81626-07, 199-81627-07
Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NANCY KENNEDY, JUSTICE
Before the Court is relator James H. Gentry's petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the trial court to hold a hearing and to rule on relator's motion for new trial. We deny relief.
To obtain mandamus relief, "[r]elator must show that 1) he has no adequate remedy at law, and 2) what he seeks to compel or prohibit is ministerial, involving no discretion." In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).
"A trial judge has a legal, nondiscretionary duty to consider and rule on properly filed motions within a reasonable time." In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). When a trial court fails to comply with that nondiscretionary, ministerial duty, "mandamus may issue to compel the [trial court] to act." In re Layton, 257 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding).
This Court's records of the underlying cases show relator pleaded guilty to five theft charges and the trial court sentenced relator in a single proceeding in open court on July 10, 2008. The motion for new trial was due thirty days after the trial court sentenced relator. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a). Thirty days after July 10, 2008, was Saturday, August 9, 2008, so the motion for new trial was due no later than Monday, August 11, 2008. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a) (when last day of a designated period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday). Although relator did not include a copy of the motion for new trial in the petition, relator states in the petition that he filed the motion for new trial on June 19, 2024, which was more than fifteen years after the due date for the motion for new trial. Relator has not shown that the June 19, 2024 motion for new trial was properly filed. Therefore, relator cannot show the trial court had a ministerial, nondiscretionary duty to rule on the motion.
Relator appealed his convictions to this Court, and we affirmed the trial court's judgments. See Gentry v. State, No. 05-08-01032-CR, 2009 WL 4201766 (Tex. App.-Dallas Nov. 30, 2009, pet. ref'd). We take judicial notice of our records from those appeals. See Turner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 218, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) ("an appellate court may take judicial notice of its own records in the same or related proceedings involving same or nearly same parties"); In re Johnson, No. 05-19-00725-CV, 2019 WL 3852654, at *2, n.1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Aug. 16, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem op.) (same).
We deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.