in Re: Gerardo Najera ( 2014 )

DENY; and Opinion Filed June 25, 2014.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00762-CV
IN RE GERARDO NAJERA, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 292nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F93-42373-V
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O'Neill, Lang, and Brown
Opinion by Justice O'Neill
Relator files this petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the trial
court to rule on his motion to compel the court reporter to provide him with the price for the
purchase of his transcript from his November 1997 criminal trial in the 292nd District Court.
The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we do not recount them here. No litigant is
entitled to a hearing at whatever time he may choose. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228-29
(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). A trial court has a reasonable time within which
to consider a motion and to rule. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).
There is no bright line standard for determining whether a reasonable time to rule has
elapsed. In re Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 133 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). The
circumstances of the case dictate whether the trial court has ruled within a reasonable time.
Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426. Many factors determine whether a trial court has ruled within a
reasonable time. Among these are “the trial court's actual knowledge of the motion, whether its
refusal to act is overt, the state of the court's docket, and the existence of other judicial and
administrative matters which must be addressed first.” Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228. The trial
court’s inherent power to control its own docket must also be given due consideration, Chavez,
62 S.W.3d at 228. Thus, a reviewing appellate court may not arbitrarily interfere with the trial
court’s power to control its docket, but may only order the trial court to rule if the circumstances
show that the trial court’s failure to act is an abuse of its discretion. See In re First Mercury Ins.
Co., No. 13-13-00469-CV, 2013 WL 6056665, at *6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Nov. 13, 2013,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Bates, 65 S.W.3d at 135. We conclude relator has failed to
establish that in the circumstances of this case the trial court’s failure to rule on his motion is an
abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
/Michael J. O'Neill/
MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
JUSTICE
140762F.P05
–2–