Document Info

DocketNumber: 14-18-00343-CR

Filed Date: 5/17/2018

Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/21/2018

  • Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May
    17, 2018.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-18-00343-CR
    IN RE JAMES OLIVER CHARLES, JR., Relator
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    405th District Court
    Galveston County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 17-CR-0273
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    On April 30, 2018, relator James Oliver Charles, Jr. filed a petition for writ of
    mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017);
    see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator complains that the presiding
    judge of the 405th District Court of Galveston County has not ruled on his petition
    for writ of habeas corpus, in which relator claims he should be released based on
    time served and good-time credit.1 Relator requests that this court compel the trial
    court to show cause why relator continues to be detained purportedly in violation of
    Texas law.
    To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator has
    no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) what the
    relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than 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).
    A relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the
    motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the
    motion within a reasonable time. 
    Id. It is
    relator’s burden to provide a sufficient
    record to establish that he is entitled to relief. See Walker v. Packer, 
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator has failed to do so. Relator has
    not provided this court with a file-stamped copy of his habeas corpus petition. See
    
    Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382
    . In the absence of a file-stamped copy of relator’s
    petition, relator has not established that the petition is actually pending in the trial
    court.
    1
    Relator did not provide this court with a copy of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.
    2
    Even if relator had established that his petition is properly pending, he has not
    demonstrated that his habeas corpus petition was properly presented to the trial court
    for a ruling. Filing a document with the district clerk does not impute the clerk’s
    knowledge of the filing to the trial court. In re Chavez, 
    62 S.W.3d 225
    , 228 (Tex.
    App.—El Paso 2001, orig. proceeding). The trial court is not required to consider a
    motion that has not been called to its attention by proper means. See 
    Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382
    .
    Moreover, a trial court has a reasonable time in which to consider and rule on
    a motion. In re Craig, 
    426 S.W.3d 106
    , 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012,
    orig. proceeding). Relator states that he filed his habeas corpus petition in the trial
    court on April 30, 2018—the same day relator filed his mandamus petition in this
    court. Therefore, even if relator could establish that his habeas corpus petition is
    pending in the trial court and has been presented to the court, relator has not shown
    that an unreasonably long period of time has lapsed since presentation of the petition
    without a ruling so as to justify the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
    Finally, although the appellate court has jurisdiction to compel the trial court
    to rule on a properly pending motion, the court may not direct the trial court on how
    to the motion. Barnes v. State, 
    832 S.W.2d 424
    , 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
    Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). Thus, even if relator met all the requirements for
    establishing that the trial court abused its discretion by not ruling on his habeas
    corpus petition, we cannot tell the trial court how to rule on relator’s habeas corpus
    petition.
    3
    Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly,
    we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Justices Busby, Brown, and Jewell.
    Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
    4