in Re Brandon Ray Morgan ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed
    October 21, 2021.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-21-00500-CR
    NO. 14-21-00501-CR
    IN RE BRANDON RAY MORGAN, Relator
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    338th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause Nos. 1419351 & 1354996
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    On September 3, 2021, relator Brandon Ray Morgan filed a petition for writ
    of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R.
    App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Ramona
    Franklin, presiding judge of the 338th District Court of Harris County, to rule on his
    pending motions.
    To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator has
    no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) what the
    relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In
    re Powell, 
    516 S.W.3d 488
    , 494‒95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). A trial court has a
    ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and pending before
    it, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re Henry, 
    525 S.W.3d 381
    , 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). A relator must
    establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked
    to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a
    reasonable time. 
    Id.
    As the party seeking relief, relator has the burden of providing this court with
    a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See In re Ramos, 
    598 S.W.3d 472
    , 473 (Tex. App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). In a
    criminal mandamus proceeding, a relator must provide the appellate court with either
    a file stamped copy of the motion or other proof that the motion is, in fact, filed and
    pending in the trial court. In re Gomez, 
    602 S.W.3d 71
    , 74 (Tex. App.―Houston
    [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding); In re Flanigan, 
    578 S.W.3d 634
    , 626 (Tex.
    App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding); Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382.
    Relator has not provided any copies of motions on which he seeks to compel the trial
    court to rule, file-stamped or otherwise. Therefore, relator has not demonstrated that
    his motions are in fact pending in the trial court.
    Even if relator showed that his application is properly pending in the trial court
    and the trial court was made aware of it, relator has not shown that it has been
    pending for an unreasonable period of time. Relator attaches copies of a document
    2
    sent to the trial court on August 16, 2021, and the petition in this court is dated
    August 31, 2021. We cannot say that unreasonable period of time had lapsed under
    the circumstances. In re Z.Q., No. 14-21-00044-CV, 
    2021 WL 786858
    , at*2 (Tex.
    App.―Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 2, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
    Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief.
    Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Poissant.
    Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-21-00500-CR

Filed Date: 10/21/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/25/2021