In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00176-CR

IN RE WILLIAM ISAAC HOFF

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

William Isaac Hoff filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial 

court’s failure to rule on a motion to dismiss. We deny the requested relief.

Hoff complains that the presiding judge of the County Court at Law of Cass County has 

failed to rule on his motion to dismiss an assault charge involving family violence. Hoff attached 

a copy of the motion to dismiss he allegedly filed in the trial court, and there is an unsworn 

declaration dated July 3, 2015, appended to that motion. However, the motion to dismiss itself is 

undated and bears no “filed” stamp or other notation demonstrating that it was actually filed in the 

trial court. Hoff included in the appendix filed with his petition a copy of a letter dated July 14, 

2015, from the Cass County Clerk addressed to a Mr. Bobby Hodge stating, “I have forwarded his 

Motion to Dismiss to the County Court at Law for the Judge to review and make a determination 

on the Dismissal that Mr. Hoff has filed.” Hoff contends that the respondent has had ample time 

to rule on his motion but has failed to do so.

We may grant a petition for a writ of mandamus when the relator shows that “‘there is no 

adequate remedy at law’” to redress the alleged harm and “‘that the act . . . to be compelled is 

purely ministerial.’” Aranda v. Dist. Clerk, 207 S.W.3d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting Winters v. Presiding Judge of Criminal Dist. Court No. Three, 

118 S.W.3d 773, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (orig. proceeding)). 

A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on a properly filed, pending motion 

within a reasonable time. See In re Shaw, 175 S.W.3d 901, 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, 

orig. proceeding). While we have mandamus jurisdiction to direct the trial court to make a 
3

decision, we may not tell the trial court what that decision should be. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 

659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). “Any such mandamus relief, however, 

must be predicated on an adequate showing that a request for a ruling has been properly and 

adequately presented to the trial court and that the court has declined to rule.” Id.

Although the motion to dismiss bears no “filed” stamp, the appendix to Hoff’s petition 

includes documentation establishing that the motion was transmitted to the County Court at Law 

of Cass County by the Cass County Clerk. This documentation does not establish that the motion 

was brought to the attention of the trial court with a request for a ruling. See id. at 661 (mandamus 

relief must be predicated on adequate showing that request for ruling has been presented to trial 

court). 

Here, the style of Hoff’s petition identifies the respondent as the County Court at Law of 

Cass County. In the body of the petition, however, Hoff names “Becky Wilbanks, Judge of the 

Cass County Court in Her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Cass County Court of Law” as the 

respondent. This Court takes judicial notice1of the fact that Donald W. Dowd is the judge of the 

County Court at Law of Cass County and that Becky Wilbanks is the Cass County Judge. See

TEX. R. EVID. 201. Moreover, the Fifth Judicial District Court of Cass County and the County 

Court at Law of Cass County have concurrent jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases not involving 

official misconduct and over all felony cases except capital murder. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 24.105(b) (West 2004) (giving the Fifth Judicial District Court the jurisdiction of a county court), 

 

1See TEX. R. EVID. 201.
4

§ 25.0362 (West Supp. 2014) (giving the Cass County Court at Law concurrent jurisdiction with 

the Fifth Judicial District Court in certain misdemeanor and felony cases). Additionally, the 

County Court for Cass County “has the general jurisdiction of a probate court but has no other 

civil or criminal jurisdiction except juvenile jurisdiction as provided by Section 26.042(b) and 

criminal jurisdiction to receive and enter guilty pleas in misdemeanor cases.” TEX. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 26.134 (West Supp. 2014).

The offense of assault family violence can be charged either as a misdemeanor or felony

offense, depending on the circumstances. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01 (West Supp. 2014). 

Thus, it is conceivable that Hoff’s case could be pending in either the County Court at Law of Cass 

County or in the Fifth Judicial District Court of Cass County. Hoff’s petition does not clearly 

identify the proper respondent, having variously named both the Cass County Judge and the 

County Court at Law of Cass County. 

In order to satisfy the presentment requirement, Hoff was required to (1) bring his motion 

to the attention of the proper trial court and (2) make a clear request for a ruling on that motion. 

See Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662.2 This he failed to do. 

 

2Typically, presentment may be accomplished by means of a letter from the relator directed to the proper trial court 

enclosing the motion on which a ruling is requested and clearly requesting a ruling.
5

Because Hoff has not established a right to mandamus relief, we deny his petition for a writ 

of mandamus.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: October 27, 2015

Date Decided: October 28 2015

Do Not Publish