Mo ti ons for l eav e to file a p e ti ti o n for w ri t of mandamus hav e notbeen re q uired 1 si nce the a ppel lat e r ule s w er e amende d i n 1997. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 52. 1 N otes and Com me nts. R e l a t o r d i d n o ta c c o m p a n y

h i s f i l i n g s w i t h a f i l i n g fe e o r a f f i d a v i to f i n d i g e n c e . W e 2 g av e rela tor

noti ce o f

t h is defectand an oppo rt uni ty to cure. On J une 29, 2009, rela tor filed a s uff ic ien t affidav itof ind ig ence. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 20. 1. T ex. C ode Cri m. Proc. Ann . art. 64 .00 1-.00 5 (Verno n 20 06). 3 NO. 07-09 -018 3-CV

IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D JU LY7, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN R E KY LE D AM ME L RYAN , R ELATOR

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
Re la to r, K yle Da m m e l Ryan , a p p e a rin g pro se , has filed a moti on for lea v e to fil e a pet ition for w rit of

man dam us and a petitio n for w rit of man dam us on June 5, 200 9. He 1 2 ask s t hat w e order

the re spond ent, the Hono ra ble Dav id L. Gle ason, to hear and ru le on h is p o st- conv ic ti on moti on for DN A te sti ng and order hi m to a ppoi nt c ounse l for 3
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t i n t h e C h a p t e r 6 4 p ro c e e d i n g . A c c o rd i n g t o r e l a t o r , on Janua ry 5, 2009, h e submitt ed a moti on for DN A te sti ng for fil ing and a moti on for appoi ntment of couns el on F ebr uar y 3. W hil e rela tor

i ncl udes thes e doc uments i n the2

app end ix

to his pet ition, n eithe r bear a f ile mark no r does he c e rt ify o r sw ear to th eir acc uracy . For

the re asons thatfoll ow , w e deny rela tor ’s moti on and peti ti on. Acc ordin g to re lat or ’s peti ti on, i n Sept ember 2006 in the 1 81stDist ric t C our t, he plea d guilty

to the charge o f

se x ual assau lt o f

a ch ild, and Ju dge Gleaso n sen ten ced h im to tw enty -fiv e y ears i n pr is on. W e j udi ci all y noti ce that Judg e Gl eason w as not t he p re sid in g jud ge o f

th e 18 1 stDist ric t Co u rtatth a t t im e , b u t was a s e n i o r di st ric t ju d ge ser v ing by as si g nment. W e w il l ass ume, therefore, that Judg e Gl eason w as dul y as si g ned to presi de ov er

the tr ial of rela tor ’s cas e by the p re si din g admi nis trati v e j udg e of the re g ion

. See Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. § 74.056( a) ( Ver non 200 5 ). T h e s cope and extent of the author ity of an as si g ned j udg e depen d s o n the ter ms and co ndi ti ons of the order of ass ig nment. Bear

d v . Be ar d, 49 S. W .3d 4 0, 47 ( Tex .App. –W aco 2 0 0 1 , p e t. deni ed)

. A
w ri t of m andamus is an order dir ect ed personal ly

to the respon dent. In r e Roselan d Oil & Gas, Inc. , 68 S. W .3d 784, 78 6 ( Tex .App. –Eas tl and 200 1, or ig . proceed ing ) (“ [m]andamus is personal to the j udg e” ). C f

. In r e B a y lo r Me d

. C t

r . at G ar lan d, 2 8 9 S.W .3d 2 77, 2 28 (Tex . 200 8) ( or ig . proceed ing ) (“ [m]andamus w il l not i ss ue ag ain st a new j udg e for w hat a fo r me r o ne di d” ); State v . O ls en, 1 6 3 T e x. 44 9 , 3 6 0 S. W .2 d 40 2 , 4 0 3 (19 6 2 ) (o rig. proce edin g) (“ [a] wr it of man dam us w ill notlie against a successo r judge in the ab sence of a r efusal by

hi m to gra n t th e reli ef Rel ator se eks ”)

. The r ecord does not ind ic ate t he sc ope of Ju dg e Gl eason ’s as si g nment. R eg ardle ss of the mer it s o f rel ator ’s co mplai nt, nothi ng sh ow s t he proper respon dent is Ju dg e Gl eason .3

Ev en i f Judg e Gl eason w er e the proper respon dent, w e w oul d find re lat or ’s peti ti on does not d emonst ra te his enti tl ement to the re q uest ed extraordin ar y re li ef he seek s. The form o f relator’s petitio n do es no t com ply w ith the Rules of Appe llate Proce dure

. It lacks the c erti ficat ion req uired by R ule 52.3 (j ) and notall docu ments in the a ppendi x are c erti fied or sw or n as req uired byRule 52.3 (k )( 1) (A ). Tex . R . Ap p. P . 52. 3. Addi ti onal ly , t he pet it ion do es no t c on ta i n prop er proo f of s er v i c e on th e r ea l pa rty i n i nt eres t, th e State. T ex. R

. App. P. 9 .5.
Mo re ov er , as sumi n g the ac curacy of the p eti ti on’ s a ppendi x , t he record does not ind ic ate re lat or ’s moti ons w er e c all ed to the atten ti on of the tr ial co urt and i t refused to ac t. Ma n d a mu s i s a n e xt r a o rd i n a r y re me d y a v a i l a b l e o n l y

i n l i mi t e d c i r c u ms t a n c e s i n v olv ing manifestand urg ent n eces si ty and not for

g ri ev ances that may

be a ddress ed by

othe r reme dies. W

a lke r v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 833 , 840 (Tex. 1992 ). A relato r must demonst ra te a cl ear

abus e of di sc re ti on or the v iol ati on of a duty

i mposed by

l aw w hen there i s n o othe r a d e quate re medy at law

. See R epubl

ic an Par ty of T exas v. D iet z , 940 S.W .2d 8 6, 88 ( Tex . 199 7)

. Rel ator does not chal len g e a ru li ng of t he tr ial co urt. R ather he al leg es failu re of that cour t t o per form a mi nis ter ial duty

. Therefor e, to obtain re li ef by mandamus, rela tor

mustalso show : (1) a leg al duty bythe tr ial co urt t o ac t; (2 ) a demand for per formance; and (3 ) a refusal to ac t. See Stoner v. Mass ey, 586 S. W .2d 8 43, 8 46 (Tex . 19 7 9) ; In r

e Chavez

, 6 2 S. W .3 d 22 5 , 2 2 8 (T e x.A p p .–Am a rill o 20 0 1 , o rig. proceed ing ).4

W it h hi s mot ion s, re la to r incl uded a let ter req uest ing the dis tr ic t c ler k t o fil e the mo tion a nd p resen t it to t he trial court. Th e record do es no t, ho w ever, indicate th e cou rt
w as made aw ar e of rela tor ’s re q uest s and w hen. A cour t has no duty

to cons ide r a moti on not cal led to it s atten ti on. Me tz ger v. Sebek

, 892 S.W .2d 20, 49 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [1st Di st. ] 199 4, w ri t den ied ). M er ely fili ng a moti on w it h the di str ic t c ler k d oes not p ro v e i t w as broug ht t o the att enti on of the tr ial co urt bec ause the c ler k’ s k now led g e of the mot ion i s n ot imput ed to the tr ial co urt. In r e Chavez

, 6 2 S

. W

. 3 d a t2 2 8

. T h e re fo re , “[ re la t o r] m u s tp ro ve that the tr ial cour

t re cei v ed noti ce of t he ple adi ng . . . . Me re ly al leg ing thatso methi ng w as f iled w ith or ma iled to th e district clerk does no t satisf y thatrequirem ent .” In re Metoye r, No. 07- 07- 0506- CR , 200 8 W L 1 2 3 5 7 5 , *1 n.2, 2008 Tex . Ap p. Le x is 243, *4 n.2, (Tex .App. –Amar il lo Janua ry 14, 2008, or ig . proc eedi ng ) ( ci tati ons omit ted) (not desi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. The r ati onal e of t his pr ecept is cl ear . “[A] cour t canno t be fault ed for doi ng not hing w hen it is o r was unaware of the ne ed to act.” In r

e Metoy er , 2008 W L 12357 5, at *1, 200 8 T ex. App. Le x is 243, at *3. Relato r’s petition f a il s f o r wa n t o f proof thathis moti ons w er e broug ht to t h e a ttentio n of the tr ial co urt and i t refused to ac t. See In re Pose y, No. 07-03 -0 518- CV , 200 4 W L 11155 1, * 1, 20 04 Tex . Ap p. Le x is 695 at * 2- *3 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo Janua ry 22, 20 04, orig . procee ding) ( me m. op.).
Rel y ing on In r

e C ash, 9 9 S. W .3 d 28 6 (T e x.A p p .– T e xar kana 2003, ori g. p ro ce e d in g) re lat or arg ues a tr ial cour

t’ s fiv e- month failu re to ru le on a moti on for D NA tes ti ng i s a cl ear a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g i s s u a n c e o f a w r i to f m a n d a m u s c o m p e l l i n g a r u l i n g . W e disagree w ith relato r’s notion th at a bright-line time stand a rd g o ve rn s the trial court’s dis creti on to r ule on a pendi ng moti on. See In re Ch a vez , 62 S. W .3d at 229 . W e alsoAn act i s c onsi dered mi nis ter ial “ ‘w hen t he l aw cl ear ly sp ell s o ut t he duty

to be 4 per formed .

. . w it h s uch cer tai nty thatnoth ing i s le ft to t h e e x er ci se of dis creti on or judgme nt.’” State ex

rel. Healey v. Mc Me ans, 884 S. W .2d 7 72, 7 74 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1994) ( quoti ng T exas D ep’ t o f Cor re cti ons v. Dalehite, 623 S. W .2d 4 20, 4 24 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 198 1)). 5 dis ag re e tha t In re Cash w ould aut h o ri ze g rant of relator’s petitio n. T here , before condi ti onal ly

g ra nti ng C ash’ s p eti ti on, t he appe ll ate c our t ex pla ine d tha t a tr ial co urt has a reason abl e ti me to ru le on a moti on broug ht t o i ts atten ti on and a rela tor se eki ng to show a tr ial cour

t abuse d it s dis creti on by faili ng to ru le must, among other thi ng s, prov e the tr ial cour t w as ask ed to per

form an a ct and fail ed or refused to do so . Id. at 28 8. T his can on ly mean the record es tabl is hed that Cas h’s moti on w as broug ht to the t ri al cour t’ s a ttent ion but t he c our

t non ethel ess di d notr ule on i t. In the p re sentca se, as w e hav e not ed, rela tor has not p ro v ed th e j udg e w as aw ar e of hi s mot ion s a nd fail ed or refused to ac t.
Rel ator ’s peti ti on furt her as ks thatw e di re ct the t ri al cour t t o appoi nt c ounse l for represe nta tion in his po st-conviction proce edin g for DNA te sting. Appo intm entof coun sel, he arg ues, i s a min is ter ial duty of the tr ial cour

t. In a Cha pter 64 proceed ing , a conv ic ti ng 4 court sha ll appo int cou nsel f o r t h e a pplican t if , am ong oth er things, it fin ds reaso nab le g ro unds for fil ing a t est ing moti on. Tex . C o d e C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 64.01( c) ( Ver non 2006)

. Therefor e, ap poi ntment of couns el in a Cha pter 64 proceed ing i s n ot a mini ste ri al act

. Beca use appoi ntment of couns el impl ic ates the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt, w e are not empow er ed to di re ct it s r uli ng on rela tor ’s req uest

. W e hav e repeated ly hel d tha t w e may not d irecta t ri al cour

t’ s d eci si on on a matt er pendi ng before it

. See, e.g., In re D uffy , No. 07-0 9- 00 90
- C V, 20 09 W L 10 66 08 8, at * 2, 20 09 Tex

. Ap p. Le x i s 27 38 , at*4-5 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo Apr. 20, 200 9, orig

. proce edin g) (mem . op. ) ( citing cases). Acco rd In6

re Bl akene y, 254 S.W .3d 659 , 661 (Te x .Ap p.– T exarkana 2008 , orig. proceed ing) (“[w]hile
w e ha v e jurisdiction to direct the trial court to ma ke a d e c isio n, w e ma y not te ll the court
w hat t hat d eci si on s houl d be” ). Thi s r ule i s a ppl ic abl e to re lat or ’s req uest

. Con cl usi on Ev en as sumi ng Ju dg e Gl eason w er e the proper re spond ent, the record before us d o e s n o td e m o n s t ra t e a cl e a r a b u s e o f d is c r e t i o n . Fo r t h e re a s o n s we h a ve st a t e d , we den y relator’s petitio n for w rit of man dam us.

Jam es T . Camp bell

Justice