Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed in Part and Denied in Part and 

Opinion filed August 2, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00492-CR

NO. 14-22-00493-CR

NO. 14-22-00494-CR

IN RE LAVONIE DEMON LAND, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1633146, 1633147, 1630199

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Thursday, July 7, 2022, relator LaVonie Demon Land 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. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Frank 

Aguilar, presiding judge of the 228th District Court of Harris County, to: (1) rule 

on his application for writ of habeas corpus purportedly mailed to the district
2

clerk’s office in May 2022 and (2) respond to his request for certified copies of 

respondent’s oath office, respondent’s delegation of authority, and certain 

provisions of the Constitution of the United States purportedly requested in 

February 2022. 

Standard of Review

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) the relator has no 

adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief sought; 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 that are properly

filed and pending before the court. See In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). And where a trial court

refuses to rule on such a motion, mandamus relief may be appropriate. See In re 

Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). To

establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show that: (1) the trial 

court had a legal duty to rule on the motion, (2) relator made a demand for the

court to rule on the motion, and (3) the trial court failed or refused to rule on the 

motion within a reasonable time. See In re Mendoza, 467 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding). 

1. Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Relator complains of his application for habeas relief purportedly pending in 

the trial court. Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final 

post-conviction felony proceedings. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07. 

Even a complaint that the trial court has failed to act or to follow the procedure 
3

established by article 11.07 must be addressed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

See In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. 

proceeding) (dismissing mandamus complaining of trial court’s failure to respond 

to a pending application for writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction). Because 

this court lacks jurisdiction to consider relator’s complaint related to his 

application for post-conviction habeas corpus relief, we dismiss that portion of 

relator’s mandamus petition for want of jurisdiction. 

2. Request for Documents

In his petition, relator states “I demanded as my legal foundation for a 

certified copy/copies of the Exact Provision, Oath of Office, and delegation of 

Authority, from the 228th court of Harris County, Houston Texas district with a 

deadline of 30 days in February 2022 [sic].” He also contends that he requested the 

trial court provide him with a copy of certain provisions of the Constitution of the 

United States. Relator has not shown that the trial court has a legal duty to rule on 

these requests, nor are we aware of such a legal duty. Accordingly, we deny this 

portion of relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus. See Zalta v. Tennant, 789 

S.W.2d 432, 433 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ) (denial of petition 

for writ of mandamus where trial court had no legal duty to rule on a motion for

partial summary judgment); In re Harberson, No. 14-15-00760-CR, 14-15-00761-

CR, 14-15-00762-CR, 2015 WL 5575760 at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

Sept. 22, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (denial 

of petition for writ of mandamus where relator failed to establish trial court’s legal 

duty to rule on a motion); In re Wilson, No. 12-14-00138-CR, 2014 WL 2609721 

at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 11, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not 
4

designated for publication) (denial of petition for writ of mandamus where trial 

court had no jurisdiction to rule on motion filed by relator).

Conclusion

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed in part and denied in 

part. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Jewell.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).