Opinion
NO. 12-11-00355-CR
11-17-2011
In re: RANDALL KELTON, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
In this original mandamus proceeding, Relator Randall Kelton complains that the respondent, the Honorable Craig Fletcher, Judge of the County Court at Law, Cherokee County, Texas, failed to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a when Relator filed his amended motion to disqualify. Specifically, Relator alleges that instead of recusing himself or forwarding the motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district as required by Rule 18a, Respondent denied the motion without a written order. Accordingly, Relator seeks (1) a writ of mandamus directing Respondent to memorialize this ruling by issuing a written order; (2) an order granting a stay of all actions against Relator in the trial court pending the outcome of his motion to disqualify Respondent; (3) an order declaring void all prior actions by the trial court against Relator; and (4) an order directing Respondent to forward the motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district. Along with his mandamus petition, Relator also filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings in the trial court.
A party seeking mandamus relief must file a petition with the clerk of the appropriate appellate court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1. The contents of that petition are prescribed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3. Among other items, the petition must include, as part of an appendix, "a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of [.]" TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). This rule has been interpreted to permit mandamus based upon an oral ruling. In re S. Ins. Co., No. 14-11-00604-CV, 2011 WL 3667849, at *1 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist] Aug. 23, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding); In re Perritt, 973 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 1998, orig. proceeding). But an oral ruling is not subject to mandamus review unless the ruling is clear, specific, enforceable, and adequately shown by the record. In re S. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 3667849, at *1; In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 811. A review of the reporter's record from the hearing at which the oral ruling is made is one means by which we can determine whether the oral ruling meets these criteria. See In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 812.
Here, Relator has not furnished a reporter's record of the hearing at which the oral ruling was made or any other document showing the ruling. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 812. Consequently, we are unable to conclude that the trial court's oral ruling is subject to mandamus review. Accordingly, we overrule Relator's emergency motion to stay the proceedings in the trial court and deny his petition for writ of mandamus.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)