COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00402-CV

IN RE VERLEE ALBERT JR. RELATOR

----------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Relator Verlee Albert Jr. asks us to compel the trial court to rule and to rule 

favorably on his request for a free copy of his trial record or his alternative 

request to borrow the trial record so that he may seek postconviction relief. We 

conditionally grant mandamus relief in part.

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Relator was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to twentythree years’ confinement.2

 This court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in 2008.3 

According to the website of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, while Relator 

has sought habeas relief in the past, no habeas proceeding appears to be 

currently pending.

To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator must demonstrate 

that he does not have an adequate remedy at law to redress an alleged harm 

and that the act he seeks to compel is ministerial, that is, not involving a

discretionary or judicial decision.4

 When a motion is properly filed and pending 

before a trial court, the act of considering and resolving it is ministerial.5 Further, 

the trial court must act within a reasonable time.6

 But the trial court generally has 

no ministerial duty to rule favorably for a relator.7

 2

Albert v. State, No. 02-07-00373-CR, 2008 WL 2330941, at *1–2 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth June 5, 2008, pet. ref’d).

3

Id. at *3.

4

See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App., 236 S.W.3d 207, 

210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

5

Id.; State ex rel. Hill v. Ct. of App. for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 

(2001); State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) 

(orig. proceeding); see also In re Lockett, No. 02-08-00452-CV, 2009 WL 

1740145, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 16, 2009, orig. proceeding).

6

Lockett, 2009 WL 1740145, at *1; In re Christensen, 39 S.W.3d 250, 251 

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000, orig. proceeding).

7

Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210.
3

In deducing what relief a pro se applicant or relator seeks, we look at a 

pleading’s contents, not just its title.8

The document entitled “HABEAS CORPUS/DISTRICT COURT” mistakenly 

states that it is an “Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” but the document 

does not seek true habeas relief because it does not complain of illegal 

confinement.9

 The only relief requested in the document is a free trial record or, 

alternatively, a trial record on loan. Relator’s request has been pending in the 

trial court since September 13, 2013. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court has 

a ministerial duty to rule on the request.

We therefore conditionally grant the writ of mandamus directing the trial 

court to rule, whether favorably or unfavorably to Relator, on Relator’s request for 

a free trial record and alternative request for the loan of the trial record. We are 

confident that the trial court will comply; only if it fails promptly to do so will the 

writ issue.

All other pending motions and objections filed by Relator in this court are 

denied.

 8

White v. Reiter, 640 S.W.2d 586, 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (orig. 

proceeding); In re Garrison, No. 07-13-00274-CV, 2013 WL 4528794, at *1 n.1 

(Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 26, 2013, orig. proceeding).

9

See Ex parte Baker, 185 S.W.3d 894, 896–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
4

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 7, 2014