eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2023-08

In Re MacEdonio Rojas Mendez v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  •                                 Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-23-00043-CR
IN RE Macedonio Rojas MENDEZ
Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting:         Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 2, 2023
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS CONDITIONALLY GRANTED IN PART AND
DISMISSED IN PART
Relator is a noncitizen who was arrested under Operation Lone Star, processed, and
released on bond. After his bonded release, relator was removed from the country. Following his
removal, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus arguing the trial court failed to rule on two
of his filings—his application for writ of habeas corpus and his motion for continuance. Relator
also filed a motion to stay the underlying proceeding pending our final resolution of his mandamus
petition, which we granted in part by staying all pretrial settings requiring relator’s in-person
appearance and his January 23, 2023 trial setting. 2
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13060CR, styled State of Texas v. Macedonio Rojas Mendez, pending in the
County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth presiding.
2
Our stay order issued on January 13, 2023.
04-23-00043-CR
A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly filed and timely presented motion.
State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Appeals at Texarkana,
    236 S.W.3d 207
    , 210 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). When a filing “is properly filed and pending before a trial
court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that [filing] is a ministerial act, and
mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act.” In re Mendoza,
    131 S.W.3d 167
     (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). “However, the trial court has a reasonable time within
which to perform this ministerial duty.”
    Id.
     “Accordingly, if a court unnecessarily delays ruling,
mandamus will lie in appropriate situations.”
    Id.
     Nevertheless, a reviewing court may not use
mandamus relief to direct the trial court to rule in a particular way. See Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210
(“While a trial court has a ministerial duty to rule upon a motion that is properly and timely
presented to it for a ruling, in general it has no ministerial duty to rule a certain way on that
motion.”) (citation omitted). That is, we, as a reviewing court, may not review and rule on the
underlying merits of relator’s filings. See id.; In re Hearn,
    137 S.W.3d 681
    , 685 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) (noting after the failure to rule elements are satisfied, this court
has “jurisdiction to direct the trial court to consider and rule on pending matters; however, we may
not tell the trial court what ruling it should make.”). Rather, this court may only review whether
(1) relator properly filed his habeas application and motion for continuance, (2) the trial court is
aware of relator’s filings, and (3) the trial court has refused to rule or failed to rule after an
unreasonable time period. See
    id.
    On September 30, 2022, relator filed his application for writ of habeas corpus seeking
discharge and dismissal of his underlying case based, in part, on equal protection principles. On
January 9, 2023, the trial court emailed relator notifying him that he was to appear in-person on
January 17, 2023 for a pretrial setting. On January 12, 2023, as he did not receive a ruling on either
his habeas application or motion for continuance, relator filed his mandamus petition.
-2-
04-23-00043-CR
Although we stayed proceedings in the underlying matter requiring the in-person
attendance of relator, our stay order expressly noted that any pretrial settings not requiring relator’s
in-person appearance may proceed. Despite being able to rule on relator’s habeas application, the
trial court has failed to do so. We hold, under these facts, that the trial court has failed to rule on
relator’s habeas application after an unreasonable time period. See Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210;
Hearn,
    137 S.W.3d at 
    685–86 (holding, while not unreasonable as a matter of law, eight months
without a ruling was unreasonable where the underlying motion sought medical treatment); In re
Villarreal,
    96 S.W.3d 708
    , 711 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding) (opining what
constitutes a reasonable time is “dependent upon the circumstances of each case” as there are “no
bright line demarcates [on] the boundaries of a reasonable time period.”).
Finally, because of the stay granted by this court, relator’s complaint about his required in-
person attendance at the January 17, 2023 pretrial hearing is moot. See In re Bonilla,
    424 S.W.3d 528
    , 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (holding mandamus petition was moot where
relator received relief sought). We, therefore, conditionally grant in part and dismiss in part
relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. The stay imposed on January 13, 2023 is lifted.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-