in Re: Jaime Luevano ( 2003 )

COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

                                                                              )

                                                                              )

                                                                              )     No.  08-03-00483-CR

                                                                              )

IN RE:  JAIME LUEVANO                                  )     AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

                                                                              )

                                                                              )     IN MANDAMUS

                                                                              )

                                                                              )

MEMORANDUM  OPINION

Relator Jaime Luevano seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial courts to rule on various pro se motions he has filed in several cases pending in the trial courts.  Relator is represented by counsel in the pending cases.

To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must establish:  (1) the act sought to be compelled is ministerial; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law.  Dickens v. Court of Appeals for Second Supreme Judicial Dist. of Texas, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987).  Because Relator is represented by counsel, the trial court has no duty to rule on his pro se motions.  See Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981).

One of Relator=s pro se motions seeks the appointment of new counsel.  This motion does not contain a file stamp or any other indication that it was received by the trial court.  In two other motions, Relator mentions that he wishes to proceed pro se.  These motions contain file stamps dated September 5, 2003.  But Relator has not established that the trial court was made aware of the motions or that the failure to rule on them in less than three months is unreasonable.  See In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710-11 & n.2 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

December 4, 2003

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice

Before Panel No. 2

Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)