in Re: Robert Boyler ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-14-00146-CR
IN RE: ROBERT BOYLER
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By way of petition for writ of mandamus, Robert Boyler, 1 an inmate in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, D.B. Ellis Unit, asks that this Court direct the 176th Judicial
District Court of Titus County, Texas, to rule on Boyler’s motion for a speedy revocation hearing
or “dismiss the probation as time served.”
We may grant a petition for writ of mandamus when the relator shows there is no
adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm and that the act to be compelled is purely
ministerial. Aranda v. Dist. Clerk, 207 S.W.3d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig.
proceeding). In proper cases, mandamus may issue to compel a trial court to act. In re Blakeney,
254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); see also Eli Lily & Co. v.
Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (orig proceeding) (trial court abuses discretion by
refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion); Chiles v. Schuble, 788 S.W.2d 205,
207 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding) (mandamus appropriate remedy to
require trial court to hold hearing and exercise discretion). Trial courts are not required to
consider or rule on a motion unless the motion is called to the court’s attention. See Blakeney,
254 S.W.3d at 662.
Boyler’s petition is not accompanied by any proof that he brought this matter to the
attention of the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1). Boyler’s petition is not accompanied
by a certified or sworn copy of the motion that is the subject of his complaint, as is required by
the Texas rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Therefore, we are unable to determine if this
1
In the documents provided, the relator’s name is spelled as both “Boyler” and “Bolyer.”
2
matter has been brought to the trial court’s attention or whether the trial court has had a
reasonable time in which to rule on Boyler’s motion. It is the relator’s burden to provide this
Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Here, the record is inadequate to grant mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we deny Boyler’s petition for writ of mandamus.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: August 28, 2014
Date Decided: August 29, 2014
Do Not Publish
3