in Re Jesus Gonzalez, Relator

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-22-00057-CR
IN RE JESUS GONZALEZ, RELATOR
OPINION ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
March 8, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Pending before the Court is the third pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed by
Jesus Gonzalez, relator. This petition nearly mirrors one, filed February 14, 2022, and
disposed of by our opinion dated February 18, 2022. He again seeks a writ directing the
Honorable Roland Saul, presiding judge of the 222nd District Court, Oldham County, to
rule upon a pending motion to modify a prior final judgment or issue a judgment nunc pro
tunc. Finding that relator’s third petition suffers many of the same deficiencies as his
earlier filings, we again deny the petition.
In In re Chavez we said that “a trial court cannot be found to have abused its
discretion until the complainant establishes that the court 1) had a legal duty to perform
a non-discretionary act, 2) was asked to perform the act, and 3) failed or refused to do
so.” 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). The need to
consider and rule upon a motion is not a discretionary act. Id. Rather, when the motion
is properly filed and pending before a court, the act of considering and resolving it is
ministerial. Id. However, the trial court has a reasonable time within which to perform.
Id. Whether such a period lapsed without action depends upon the circumstances of
each case. Id. Moreover, no bright line demarcates the boundaries of a reasonable
period. Id. Its borders depend upon a myriad of criteria, not the least of which is the trial
court’s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act on same, the state of the
court’s docket, and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which must
be addressed first. Id. at 228–29. So too must the trial court’s inherent power to control
its docket be factored into the mix. Id. at 229. Relator presented us with a deficient record
touching upon these indicia, and it was his burden to do that. Consequently, he has not
proved himself entitled to relief.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. As directed in our February 18, 2022
opinion, the Clerk of this Court is directed to serve the Honorable Roland Saul with a copy
of this order and the petition for writ of mandamus (and attachments thereto) it denies in
a manner affording Judge Saul actual notice of same.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2