## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 13 - 00 4 02 - CV

IN RE VERLEE ALBERT JR. RELATOR

---------- ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Relator Verlee Albert Jr. asks us to compel the trial court to rule a nd 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 r obbery and sentenced to twenty

three 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 a ppears 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 h as 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. C t. of App

. , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

5 Id. ; State ex rel. Hill v. Ct. of App. f or Fifth Dist. , 34 S.W.3d 92 4, 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. 0 2

- 08

- 00 452

- CV, 2009 WL 1740145, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth June 16, 2009, orig. proceeding ).
6 Lockett , 2009 WL 1740145, at *1 ; In re Christ e nsen , 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 a n “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 ru le , whether favorably or unfavorably to Relator, on Relator’s request for a free trial record and alternat ive 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 iss ue. 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