State ( 2006 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00144-CV

______________________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE

BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF L.H.

---

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. M-08690

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            L.H. appeals the trial court's order authorizing administration of psychoactive medication. She contends that the trial court's temporary commitment order is invalid and that, therefore, the order authorizing administration of psychoactive medication is likewise invalid.

            The trial court may enter an order authorizing the administration of psychoactive medication if it finds by clear and convincing evidence, among other things, that the patient is under an order for temporary or extended mental health services. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 574.106(a) (Vernon Supp. 2005). L.H. expressly limited her argument to this requirement that the patient be under an order for mental health services.

            In The State for the Best Interest and Protection of L.H., cause number 06-05-00143-CV, this Court affirmed the trial court's commitment order, concluding that such order was supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. Having concluded that the trial court's commitment order is valid, we overrule L.H.'s contention and affirm the trial court's order authorizing the administration of psychoactive medication.

                                                                        Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                        Chief Justice

Date Submitted:          January 18, 2006

Date Decided:             January 25, 2006

0; Lawrence Reginald Bell seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to rule on his motion to compel the court reporter to prepare and provide Bell with a free copy of the reporter's record in his criminal trial. Based on the record and pleadings before us, and without hearing oral argument, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

            According to his petition for writ of mandamus, Bell asked the trial court to compel the court reporter to prepare a full statement of facts in cause number 00-15721, without charge due to Bell's indigency. On or about November 9, 2003, Bell asked the trial court to rule on his motion to compel. On or about December 10, 2003, Bell again requested the trial court to enter a ruling on his earlier motion to compel and to inform him of the court's ruling. By January 12, 2004, Bell had received no response from the trial court.

When Mandamus Relief Is Available

            Mandamus will issue only when the record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if the trial court clearly abuses its discretion or, in the absence of another statutory remedy, fails to observe a mandatory provision conferring a right or forbidding a particular action. Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding).

            Mandamus may issue even on questions of first impression if, as a matter of law, the trial court erred in its analysis and reached an erroneous legal conclusion. Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding).

Ruling on Motions

            A trial court is required to consider and rule on a motion within a reasonable time. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265, 266–67 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding). When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, considering and ruling on that motion is a ministerial act, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding); see also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion); Chiles v. Schuble, 788 S.W.2d 205, 207 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding) (finding mandamus appropriate to require trial court to hold hearing and exercise discretion). While we have jurisdiction to direct the trial court to make a decision, we may not tell the court what that decision should be. O'Donniley v. Golden, 860 S.W.2d 267, 269–70 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1993, orig. proceeding).

  Bell's Application Is Moot  

            In the case now before us, Bell asks us to order the trial court to rule on his motion to compel the court reporter to provide Bell with a free transcript of the hearing(s) in trial court cause number 00-15721. The trial court has informed this Court that the court reporter has located and furnished a copy of the hearing transcript to Bell. Based on this information, the objective sought by Bell through petition for writ of mandamus from this Court has already been achieved. We deny Bell's petition as moot.

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice

Date Submitted:          February 9, 2004

Date Decided:             February 10, 2004