Opinion
No. 14-11-00347-CR
Opinion filed April 28, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Original Proceeding Writ of Mandamus 182nd District Court, Harris County, Trial Court Cause No. 1146334.
Panel consists of Justices FROST, JAMISON, and McCALLY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 25, 2011, relator La'Raun Henderson 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 Jeanine Barr, presiding judge of the 182nd District Court of Harris County to provide him with a free copy of the record from his previous trial. In 2008, relator was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and sentenced to confinement for 30 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This court affirmed his conviction in an opinion dated March 4, 2010. See Henderson v. State, No. 14-08-00971-CR; 2010 WL 724308 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). Attached to relator's petition for writ of mandamus is a motion requesting a free copy of the record from his trial. The motion, however, bears no file-stamp showing it was filed with the trial court, nor has relator provided this court with proof that, if his motion was filed, the trial court was made aware of the motion or asked to rule on it. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and 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). A relator must establish the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so. In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.-Waco 2003, orig. proceeding). Filing something with the district clerk's office does not mean the trial court is aware of it; nor is the clerk's knowledge imputed to the trial court. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). Relator has not provided file-stamped copies of any motions demonstrating they are actually pending in the trial court. Absent a showing the trial court is aware of and has been asked to rule on his motion, relator has not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.