In Re Christian Esquivel v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-24-00116-CR
IN RE CHRISTIAN ESQUIVEL
Original Proceeding
From the 66th District Court
Hill County, Texas
Trial Court No. 30,367
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, Relator Christian Esquivel seeks mandamus relief in
the form of compelling the Respondent trial judge to hear and rule on his motion and
amended motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.
A court with mandamus authority “will grant mandamus relief if relator can
demonstrate that the act sought to be compelled is purely ‘ministerial’ and that relator
has no other adequate legal remedy.” In re Piper, 105 S.W.3d 107, 109 (Tex. App.—Waco
2003, orig. proceeding) (quoting State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194, 197–99 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2003) (orig. proceeding)). Consideration of a motion properly filed and
before the trial court is ministerial. State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34
S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding). A trial judge has a
reasonable time to perform the ministerial duty of considering and ruling on a motion
properly filed and before the judge. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). But that duty generally does not arise until the
movant has brought the motion to the trial judge’s attention, and mandamus will not lie
unless the movant makes such a showing, and the trial judge then fails or refuses to rule
within a reasonable time. In re Rangel, 570 S.W.3d 968, 969 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, orig.
proceeding); see Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228.
Esquivel bears the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to
establish his right to mandamus relief. See Rangel, 570 S.W.3d at 969; In re Blakeney, 254
S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). The record here does
not show that Esquivel has requested a hearing or ruling on either of the motions in
question or that the trial judge has then failed or refused to rule within a reasonable
time. Accordingly, we deny Esquivel’s petition for writ of mandamus.
MATT JOHNSON
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
(Chief Justice Gray dissenting)
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed May 9, 2024
Do not publish
[OT06]
In re Esquivel Page 2