Opinion
14-24-00445-CR
08-15-2024
IN RE DARRELL WILLIAMS, Relator
Do Not Publish - Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1491754
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher, Justices Jewell and Spain.
MEMORANDUM MAJORITY OPINION
PER CURIAM
On Monday, June 17, 2024, relator Darrell Williams 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 Hazel B. Jones, presiding judge of the 174th District Court of Harris County, to rule on "a motion for improper sentence."
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) the relator has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief sought; and (2) what the relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In re Flanigan, 578 S.W.3d 634, 635 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding)).
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. Flanigan, 578 S.W.3d at 635. "A trial court is required to rule on a motion within a reasonable time after the motion has been submitted to the court for a ruling or a ruling on the motion has been requested." Id. at 636 (quoting In re Foster, 503 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding)).
As the party seeking relief, relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish relator's right to mandamus relief. Flanigan, 578 S.W.3d at 636; see Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with petition "a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding"); Tex.R.App.P. 52.3(j) (relator must certify "that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record").
To be entitled to mandamus relief for a trial judge's failure to rule on a motion within a reasonable time, the record must show both that the motion was filed and brought to the attention of the judge for a ruling. Id. To establish that the motion was filed, relator must provide either a file stamped copy of the motion or other proof that the motion was in fact filed and is pending before the trial court. Id. 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).
Relator is not entitled to mandamus relief because he has not provided this court with any mandamus record. We deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.
MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION
Charles A. Spain, Justice
The idea that an incarcerated person can get this court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial judge to rule on a motion in a criminal proceeding is akin to the Myth of Sisyphus. See generally In re Williams, 672 S.W.3d 683, 683- 84 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, orig. proceeding) (Spain, J., dissenting). But maybe I'm wrong and one day this court will. I certainly hope so.
In this original proceeding, the majority specifically denies the petition for a writ of mandamus because of a procedural defect: "Relator is not entitled to mandamus relief because he has not provided this court with any mandamus record." I would give relator notice and an opportunity to cure, and if relator does not cure the procedural defect, then I would dismiss for want of prosecution. That only seems fundamentally fair.
If relator were to cure the procedural defect, then the majority might return to its heads-I-win-tails-you-lose position requiring something that relator cannot do, get a day pass from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Charles T. Terrell Unit, go to the trial court, and present his motion to the presiding judge for a ruling. Alternately, if it's true that relator has filed a motion in the trial court by mail, then the presiding judge could just do their job and rule on it. There is so much stubborn hope in the human heart.
But for today, I dissent to the court's failure to give relator notice and an opportunity to cure.