In Re Pablo Sanchez Camberos v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-23-00190-CR
IN RE Pablo Sanchez CAMBEROS
Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, 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
filings—his application for writ of habeas corpus and his motion to urge. 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. 2
Relator argues the trial court has failed to rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus
and motion to urge. He concludes that, because his underlying habeas application is meritorious,
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13692CR, styled State of Texas v. Pablo Sanchez Camberos, pending in the
County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth and the Honorable Susan D. Reed
presiding.
2
Our stay order issued on March 8, 2023.
04-23-00190-CR
he has a clear right to mandamus relief. Real party in interest, the State of Texas, first responds
that relator cannot satisfy all the failure-to-rule elements. Next, the State contends relator is not
entitled to mandamus relief because his underlying habeas application is meritless.
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 to urge; (2) the trial court was aware
of relator’s filings; and (3) the trial court refused to rule or failed to rule after an unreasonable time
period. See id.On February 27, 2023, relator filed his application for writ of habeas corpus seeking
discharge and dismissal of his underlying case based on equal protection principles. The same day,
-2-
04-23-00190-CR
he asked the trial court to set a hearing on his habeas application. On February 28, 2023, relator
filed a motion to urge the trial court to rule on his habeas application. When he had not received a
ruling on either his habeas application or motion to urge by March 6, 2023, relator filed his
mandamus petition.
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. Under these facts, we hold that the trial court’s failure to rule on
relator’s habeas application warrants mandamus relief. 3 See Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210; Mendoza,
131 S.W.3d 167.
Finally, because of the stay granted by this court, relator’s complaint about his required in-
person attendance at the March 9, 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 March 8, 2023 is lifted.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
3
Because we are unable to review the merits of relator’s habeas application without a ruling from the trial court, we
do not address relator’s second argument. See Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210.
-3-