Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

March 8, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00111-CR

IN RE DEANDRE DYNELL DEBOEST, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1737576

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 22, 2022, relator Deandre Dynell Deboest filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. 

R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Lori 

Chambers Gray, presiding judge of the 262nd District Court of Harris County, to 

remove the public defender as his counsel and respect his “motions for waiver of 

counsel and self-representation . . . .”
2

With regard to relator’s complaint that the trial court has failed to rule on his 

pro se motions for waiver of counsel and self-representation, to be entitled to 

mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator has no adequate remedy at 

law for obtaining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) what the relator seeks to 

compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In re Powell, 516 

S.W.3d 488, 494–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). If a party 

properly files a motion with a trial court, the trial court has a ministerial duty to 

rule on the motion within a reasonable time after the motion has been submitted to 

the court for a ruling or after the party requested a ruling. In re Ramos, 598 

S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (citing 

In re Flanigan, 578 S.W.3d 634, 635–36 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, 

orig. proceeding)). Thereafter, if a trial court fails to rule, mandamus may issue to 

compel the trial court to act. Ramos, 598 S.W.3d at 473.

As the party seeking relief, it is relator's burden to provide a sufficient record 

to establish that relator is entitled to mandamus relief. In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 

71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). For mandamus 

relief to be granted, the record must show (1) the motion was filed and brought to 

the attention of the respondent-judge for a ruling, and (2) the respondent-judge has 

not ruled on the motion within a reasonable time after the motion has been 

submitted to the court for a ruling or after the party requested a ruling. See id. In a 

criminal mandamus proceeding, to establish that a motion was filed, a relator must 

provide the appellate court with either a file-stamped copy of the motion or other 

proof that the motion is, in fact, filed and pending in the trial court. Id. at 74 
3

(citing Flanigan, 578 S.W.3d at 636); In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding).

Here, relator neither attaches a file-stamped copy of a motion nor any other 

proof that a motion in fact was filed and is pending before the trial court. See 

Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 73–74. As such, relator has not met his burden of providing 

this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See id. 

On this record, relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. 

For these reasons, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and 

Wilson.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).