In Re Darrell Williams v. the State of Texas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed, in part, and Denied, in part, and
Majority and Dissenting Memorandum Opinions filed June 6, 2023.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-23-00091-CR
IN RE DARRELL WILLIAMS, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
174th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1491754
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 9, 2023, relator Darrell Williams filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R.
App. P. 52. Relator names the Honorable Hazel B. Jones, presiding judge of the
174th District Court of Harris County, and her court reporter as the respondents.
Relator asks this court to compel the respondents to provide him with “information
concerning [his] transcript. . . .”
Court Reporter
We do not have jurisdiction over the court reporter in this original
proceeding. Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code expressly limits the
mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to (1) writs against a “judge of a
district or county court in the court of appeals district” and (2) all writs necessary
to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221. The
court reporter is not a district court or county court judge in this court’s district,
and relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ against the court reporter is
necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we lack
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the court reporter.
Trial Court Judge
To be entitled to mandamus relief against the respondent-judge, the relator
must show that (1) he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm,
and (2) what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not a discretionary act. In re
Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). A
trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and
pending before it, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re
Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig.
proceeding). For relator to be entitled to mandamus relief, the record must show
(1) the motion was filed and brought to the attention of the respondent-judge for a
2
ruling, and (2) the respondent-judge has not ruled on the motion within a
reasonable time after the motion was submitted to the court for a ruling or after the
party requested a ruling. In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding).
As the party seeking mandamus relief, relator has the burden of providing
this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Id. at
73–74; Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must
file with the mandamus petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that
is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying
proceeding”). To establish that the motion was filed, the relator must provide
either a file-stamped copy of the motion or other proof that the motion in fact was
filed and is pending before the trial court. Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 74. Merely filing
a motion with a court clerk does not show that the motion was brought to the trial
court’s attention for a ruling because the clerk’s knowledge is not imputed to the
trial court. In re Ramos, 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2020, orig. proceeding).
Relator has not provided this Court with any documents filed in the
underlying proceeding. There is no mandamus record to demonstrate that a motion
to obtain a transcript and/or information concerning a transcript is pending in the
trial court. Similarly, there is no record that relator has brought a pending motion
to the attention of the respondent-judge for a ruling. Mere filing is insufficient
because the clerk’s knowledge is not imputed to the trial judge. See Ramos, 598
S.W.3d at 473. The respondent-judge is not required to consider a motion that has
3
not been called to the trial court’s attention by proper means. See Henry, 525
S.W.3d at 382. Even if relator showed that his motion is properly pending in the
trial court and the trial court was made aware of it, relator has not shown that it has
been pending for an unreasonable period of time. See Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 73.
In sum, relator has not satisfied his obligation to provide this Court with a
complete and adequate record sufficient to establish his entitlement to relief.
Conclusion
To the extent relator seeks mandamus relief against the court reporter, we
dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. We deny
relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as to respondent Judge Jones.
/s/ Tracy Christopher
Chief Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain (Spain,
J., dissenting).
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
4