Opinion
NO. 14-20-00606-CR
11-10-2020
IN RE LEONARD TYRONE TEAL, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
179th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1091458
MAJORITY MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 3, 2020, relator Leonard Tyrone Teal 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 Randy Roll, presiding judge of the 179th District Court of Harris County, to rule on relator's motion for DNA testing.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show that (1) he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and (2) what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not a discretionary act. In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). 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 Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). For relator to be entitled to mandamus relief, the record must show (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. In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding).
As the party seeking mandamus relief, relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Id.; Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382. To establish that the motion was filed, the relator must provide either a file-stamped copy of the motion or other proof that the motion in fact was filed and is pending before the trial court. Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 74. Merely filing a motion with a court clerk does not show that the motion was brought to the trial court's attention for a ruling because the clerk's knowledge is not imputed to the trial court. In re Ramos, 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding).
Although the mandamus record shows that relator filed his motion for DNA testing on December 9, 2019, the record does not show that relator has brought this motion to the attention of the respondent-judge for a ruling. Mere filing is insufficient because the clerk's knowledge is not imputed to the trial judge. See Ramos, 598 S.W.3d at 473. The respondent-judge is not required to consider a motion that has not been called to his attention by proper means. See Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382. Relator has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.
/s/ Ken Wise
Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot (Bourliot, J., concurring without opinion).
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).