in Re Ronald E. Knox ( 2005 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-05-491 CV ____________________

IN RE RONALD E. KNOX

---

Original Proceeding

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ronald E. Knox petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for new trial and request for a bench warrant. The cases allegedly affected by the motion for new trial, Cause Nos. CR20202, CR20203, and CR20280, appear to be criminal cases. Knox alleges the motion has been on file for 140 working days without a ruling. In a criminal case, a motion for new trial is deemed denied 75 days after sentence is imposed. Tex. R. App. P. 21.8. The relator fails to demonstrate that his motion for new trial has not been overruled by operation of law. He also fails to explain why the refusal to issue a written ruling on the motion for new trial could not be raised as error in an appeal.

We may grant mandamus relief if relator demonstrates that the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial under the relevant facts and law, and that relator has no other adequate legal remedy. State ex. rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). An act is "ministerial" if it does not involve the exercise of any discretion or the relator's entitlement to the relief sought is clear and indisputable such that its merits are beyond dispute. Id. at 927-28. The existence of an adequate remedy at law in the form of an appeal precludes mandamus relief. Alvarez v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 977 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). In this case, the relator has not shown that he is entitled to the relief sought.

The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore denied.

WRIT DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered December 1, 2005

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.