From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Ramos-Castro

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District
Jul 26, 2022
No. 01-22-00349-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 26, 2022)

Opinion

01-22-00349-CR

07-26-2022

IN RE ARMANDO RAMOS-CASTRO, Relator


Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Relator Armando Ramos-Castro complains that the trial court has not ruled on his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. We deny relief.

The underlying case is Armando Ramos-Castro v. The State of Texas, cause number 74812, pending in the 412th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the Honorable Justin R. Gilbert presiding.

Relator claims that he filed a motion for nunc pro tunc on February 9, 2022, and he attaches a copy of a United State Post Office return receipt showing that a filing was addressed to the Brazoria County District Clerk and was received on February 9, 2022. Relator claims that no ruling has been made.

"To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) what the relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act." In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). If the party properly files the motion with the trial court, the court has a ministerial duty to rule within a reasonable time after the motion was submitted for a ruling or after the party requested a ruling. See In re Flanigan, 578 S.W.3d 634, 635-36 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding).

To obtain mandamus relief for the trial court's alleged failure to rule, the relator must provide a record that shows "(1) the motion was filed and brought to the attention of the respondent-judge for a ruling, and (2) the respondent-judge has not ruled on the motion within a reasonable time after the motion was submitted to the court for a ruling or after the party requested a ruling." Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 73.

As the party seeking mandamus, relator has the burden of providing a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320, 321 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding). Although relator has provided a return receipt for an unidentified filing, he has not provided a file-stamped copy of a motion nunc pro tunc establishing that the motion was properly filed. See id. And merely showing that a motion was filed is not sufficient to impute the clerk's knowledge of the filing to the trial court. See id. at 322 (citing In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106, 107 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding) ("The mere filing of a motion with the trial court clerk does not equate to a request that the trial court rule on the motion."). The trial court has no duty to consider a motion not called to its attention either by submission or by a request for a ruling. See In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). Because relator has not provided proof of the filing of a motion nunc pro tunc or that he brought any such motion to the trial court's attention by proper means, he has not provided a sufficient record to establish his entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).


Summaries of

In re Ramos-Castro

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District
Jul 26, 2022
No. 01-22-00349-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 26, 2022)
Case details for

In re Ramos-Castro

Case Details

Full title:IN RE ARMANDO RAMOS-CASTRO, Relator

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, First District

Date published: Jul 26, 2022

Citations

No. 01-22-00349-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 26, 2022)