Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed in P art and Denied in P art and

Opinion filed August 2 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 22
- 00492
- CR N O . 14
- 22
- 00493
- CR N O . 14
- 22
- 00494
- CR

IN RE LAVONIE DEMON LAND , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRI T OF MANDAMUS 228th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No s . 1633146 , 1633147, 1630199


### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On Thursday, July 7, 2022 , relator LaVonie Demon Land filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code An n . § 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

o n his application for writ of habeas corpus pu rportedly ma i l ed to the district2

clerk ’ s office in May 2022 and (2) respond to his request for cer tified cop ies of responden t ’ s o ath o f

fice, respondent ’ s del egation of authority , and certain provisions of the Constitution of the United States pu rportedly requested in F e bruary 2022.
Standard of Review
To be entitled to mandamus rel ief , a relator must s how (1) the relator has no ad eq uate rem edy at law for obtaining the relief sough t; and (2) what the relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act r ather than a discr e tionary act. In re Powell , 516 S.W.3d 488, 494

– 9 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proce eding ). A
t rial court has a m inisterial 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. A p p.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). And where a tria l court ref us es to rule on such a motion, mandamus relief may be appro priate. See In re Molina , 94 S.W.3d 88 5, 886 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, orig. pro ceeding). T o est a blish t h at he is entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show that : (1) the t rial court had a legal duty to rule on th e motion, ( 2) relator made a de m and for the court to rule on the motion, and (3) the trial court failed or refused to rule on th e motion within a reasonable time. See In re Mendoza , 467 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Tex. App.

— Hous ton [1st Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding). 1. A p pl i cation for Writ o f H abeas C orpus Relator complains of his application for habeas relief purportedly pending in the tr ial co urt. Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has ju risdiction in final post

- convicti on felony proceedings. See Tex. Code Crim

. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07

. Even a complaint that th e trial court has failed to act or to follow the procedure3

established by article 11.07 must b e addressed to the C o urt of Criminal Appeals. See I n re McAfee , 53 S.W.3 d 715, 718 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (dism issing mandamus complaining of tr ial court ’ s failure to respon d to a pending application for writ of habeas corpu s for lack of jurisdiction). Because th is court lacks jurisdiction to co nsider relator ’ s complain t related to his application for post

- c onvicti on h abeas co rpus relief, we dismiss that p ortion of relator ’ s mandamus petition for want of jurisdic tion. 2. Reques t for Documents In his petition, r elator states “ I demanded as my legal foundation for a certif ied copy/ copies of the E xact Provision , Oath of O f fice, and delegation of A uth ority, from the 228 th court of Harr is County, Houston Texas district with a deadlin e of 30 da ys in February 202 2 [sic]

. ” He also contends that he requested the trial court provide him with a copy of certain provisions of the Constitution of t he United States. Relator has not shown that the trial court has a legal duty to rule o n these re q uests , no r are we aware of such a legal duty. Accordingly, we deny this portion of relator ’ s petition for a writ of mandamus. See Z alta v. T e nnant , 789 S.W.2d 432, 433 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ ) ( denial of petition for writ of manda mus w here trial court had no le gal duty to rule on a motion for partial summary judg ment); In re Harberson , No. 14

- 15

- 00760

- CR, 14

- 15

- 00761

- CR, 14

- 1 5

- 00762

- C R, 2 0 15 WL 5575760 at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 22, 20 15, orig. proceeding) (mem . op., n o t de s ignated for publication) ( denial of petition for wr it of mandamus where relator failed to es tablish 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 1 1, 2014, orig. proceedin g ) (me m . op., not4

de signated for publication) ( denial of petition for writ of mandamus where trial court had no juris diction to rule o n motion filed by relator). C onclusio n Relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed in part and denied in part.

PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Je well. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).