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, Te xa s Trial Court Cause No. 1737576


### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 22, 2022 , relator Deandre Dynell Deboest filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks th is 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 r elator’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 mu st show (1) that the re lator has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the re li ef 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. Ap p. 2017) (orig. proceed ing). If a party properly files a motion with a trial c ou rt, 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 requ ested 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

c ompel the trial court to act. Ramos , 598 S.W.3d at 473.
A s the p arty 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 D ist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). For mandamus relief to b e 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 f

o r a ruli ng 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

- stam ped copy of the motion or other proof that the motion is , in fact , filed and pending in the trial court. Id . at 743

(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, relato r neither attaches a file

- stamped copy of a motion nor a n y 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 sufficien t record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See i d

. 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 c onsists of Justices Ch ie f Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.
Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).