in Re Jason Dale Whitlock ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-14-00565-CV
    In re Jason Dale Whitlock
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TOM GREEN COUNTY
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Relator Jason Dale Whitlock, an inmate appearing pro se, has filed a petition for
    writ of mandamus. In the petition, Whitlock asks this Court to order the 391st District Court of
    Tom Green County to rule on Whitlock’s “motion to compel for speedy chapter 59 hearing.”1
    Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that issues only to correct a clear abuse
    of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal.2 When a motion is properly filed and
    pending before the trial court, the act of considering and ruling on that motion is a ministerial act,
    and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act.3 However, the relator has the burden to
    provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief.4 To
    1
    This is apparently a reference to Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,
    relating to the forfeiture of contraband. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 59.01 et seq. In the motion,
    Whitlock is demanding a hearing in response to what he characterizes as “the State’s attempt to
    illegally take and keep his money in the amount of $1,965.00.”
    2
    In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 135-36 (Tex. 2004).
    3
    In re Chavez, 
    62 S.W.3d 225
    , 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).
    
    4 Walker v
    . Packer, 
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Mendoza,
    
    131 S.W.3d 167
    , 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); see Tex. R. App.
    P. 52.7(a)(1).
    obtain mandamus relief compelling a trial court to rule on a properly filed motion, a relator must
    provide a record demonstrating that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was
    asked to rule on the motion; and (3) either refused or failed to rule on the motion within a reasonable
    time.5 Whitlock has failed to provide such a record here.6 Accordingly, the petition for writ of
    mandamus is denied.7
    ____________________________________________
    Bob Pemberton, Justice
    Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field
    Filed: October 28, 2014
    5
    In re Layton, 
    257 S.W.3d 794
    , 795 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding); In re
    Blakeney, 
    254 S.W.3d 659
    , 662 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding).
    6
    See 
    Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662
    ; In re Davidson, 
    153 S.W.3d 490
    , 491 (Tex.
    App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); 
    Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228
    .
    7
    See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). Whitlock has also filed a motion for leave to file his petition
    for writ of mandamus. No such leave is required. We dismiss that motion as moot.
    2