in Re John F. Hawkins

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-18-00180-CR
____________________
IN RE JOHN F. HAWKINS
_______________________________________________________ ______________
Original Proceeding
163rd District Court of Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B-30731-R
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John F. Hawkins filed a petition for mandamus relief through which he seeks
to compel the trial court to rule on a motion for new trial Hawkins filed after his
conviction was affirmed on appeal and after the trial court’s plenary power over the
case expired.1 To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show
that he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. State ex rel. Rosenthal
v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Generally, the trial court has a
1
See generally Hawkins v. State, No. 10-04-00234-CR, 2006 WL 300976, at *2
(Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 8, 2006, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for
publication).
1
duty to rule on a properly and timely filed motion within a reasonable time. See State
ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). But a trial court
“does not have a duty to rule on free-floating motions unrelated to currently pending
actions. In fact, it has no jurisdiction to rule on a motion when it has no plenary
jurisdiction coming from an associated case.” In re Cash, No. 06-04-00045-CV,
2004 WL 769473, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 13, 2004, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op.). “When a conviction has been affirmed on appeal and the mandate has
issued, general jurisdiction is not restored in the trial court.” State v. Patrick, 86
S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Hawkins cites no authority for the trial
court to act when a motion for new trial is filed more than thirty days after the date
on which the trial court imposes sentence in open court. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a).
Hawkins has neither shown that he has a clear and indisputable right to have
the trial court consider and rule upon his motion at this time, nor has Hawkins shown
that he is presently entitled to mandamus relief from this Court. Accordingly, we
deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
2
Submitted on May 22, 2018
Opinion Delivered May 23, 2018
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
3