Summary
dealing with similar claim under similar circumstances
Summary of this case from In re MolinarOpinion
No. 08-20-00126-CR
08-25-2020
IN RE: EDUARDO SANCHEZ, Relator
AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Eduardo Sanchez, a pro se inmate, has filed a writ of mandamus petition against the Honorable Selena Solis, judge of the 243rd District Court of El Paso County, Texas, for allegedly failing to timely act on his motion for appointment of counsel in post-conviction DNA testing proceedings as authorized by TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 64.03. The writ is denied.
Generally, mandamus relief is appropriate only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, and only where the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). The burden is on the relator to show he is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Ford Motor Company, 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding).
As we recently noted, "a trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and pending before it, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act." In re Harris, No. 08-19-00208-CR, 2019 WL 6242315, at *1-2 (Tex.App.--El Paso Nov. 22, 2019) (not designated for publication), citing In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). In the mandamus setting, a relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. Id. A trial court is not required to consider a motion that has not been called to its attention by proper means. Id.
Even if Relator is correct that his motion has been pending since January 17, 2020, he first wrote the trial court asking it to rule on March 10, 2020. He has not established that the trial court failed to act within a reasonable period of time under these circumstances. No bright-line rule exists to assess reasonableness; what constitutes a reasonable time to rule on a motion depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In re Mesa Petroleum Partners, L.P., 538 S.W.3d 153, 157 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2017, orig. proceeding). Factors we take into account in assessing the reasonableness of time for a pending motion include the seriousness and complexity of the pending motion, the court's actual knowledge of the motion, the state of the trial court's docket, the existence of judicial and administrative matters which the trial court must first address, and the court's inherent power to control its own docket. Id. at 157-58. We might add that the request to rule was filed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and much of the period of delay falls within the time limiting in-court proceedings in the Texas court system.
After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude that Relator has failed to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. All pending motions are denied as moot.
JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice August 25, 2020 Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ. (Do Not Publish)