in Re Alphonso Grant ( 2011 )

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 7, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00549-CR

____________

IN RE ALPHONSO GRANT, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 605624

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            On June 27, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  Relator complains that respondent, the Honorable Vanessa Valasquez, presiding judge of the 183rd District Court of Harris County, has failed to rule on his motions to obtain trial records.

            To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig.proceeding). Consideration of a motion that is properly filed and before the court is a ministerial act.  State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App.1987) (orig.proceeding) (op. on reh'g).  A relator must establish the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so.  In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App. -- Waco 2003, orig. proceeding).  A relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and asked to rule on the motion.  In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App. -- Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). Filing something with the district clerk's office does not mean the trial court is aware of it; nor is the clerk's knowledge imputed to the trial court.  Id. at n. 2.

The motions attached to relator’s petition are directed to the District Clerk of Harris County, not Judge Valesquez.  Absent a showing the trial court is aware of and been asked to rule on his motion, relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Brown and Christopher.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)