### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10
- 19
- 00277
- CR IN RE JACKIE RUSSELL KEETER
Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding, Relator Jackie Russell Keeter seeks to compel the respondent , the Judge of the 220th Judicial District Court of Hamilton County, to rule on his “ Motion Nunc Pro Tunc. ” “A court with mandamus authority ‘will grant mandamus relief if relator can demonstrate that the act sought to be compelled is purely ‘ministerial’ and that relator has no other adequate legal remedy.’” In re Piper, 105 S.W.3d 107, 109 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2003, orig. proceeding) (quoting State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194, 197

- 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (orig. proceeding)). C onsideration of a motion properly filed and before
the court is ministerial. State ex rel. Hill v. Ct. of App. for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding).In re Keeter Page 2 Mandamus may issue to compel a trial court to rule on a motion which has been pend ing before the court for a reasonable period of time. See In re Hearn , 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 20 04, orig. proceeding); In re Keeter , 134 S.W.3d 250, 252

- 53 (Tex. App.

— Waco 20 03, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 20 01, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 19 92, orig. proceeding); see also In re Shredder Co. , 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 20 06, orig. proceeding). To obtain mandamus relief for such refusal, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. See Hearn , 137 S.W.3d at 685; Keeter , 134 S.W .3d at 252; Chavez , 62 S.W.3d at 228; Barnes , 832 S.W.2d at 426; see also Shredder Co. , 225 S.W.3d at 679. The mere filing of a motion with a trial court clerk does not equate to a request that the trial court rule on the motion. See Hearn , 137 S.W.3d at 685; Chavez , 62 S.W.3d at 228; Barnes , 832 S.W.2d at 426; cf. Shredder Co. , 225 S.W.3d at 680 (“Relator has made repeated requests for a ruling on its motion.”). In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (emphasis added). A trial judge has a reasonable time to perform the ministerial duty of considering and ruling on a motion properly filed and before the judge. Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228. But that duty generally does not arise until the movant has brought the motion to the trial judge’s attention , and mandamus will not lie unless the movant makes such a showing and the trial judge then fails or refuses to rule within a reasonable time. See id. Also, t he mere filing of a matter with the clerk does not imp ute knowledge to the trial judge

. See In re Flores,
No. 04

- 03

- 00449

- CV, 2003 WL 21480964 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Jun. 25, 2003, orig.
p roceeding) (mem. op.).
Keeter bears the burden of providing a sufficient record to establish his right to
mandamus relief. See In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); see also In re Mullins, 10

- 09

- 00143

- CV, 2009 WL 2959716, at *1 n.1 (Tex.In re Keeter Page 3

App.

— Waco Sept. 16, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). T here is no record showing
that Keeter has brought his “Motion Nunc Pro Tunc” to the attention of the trial judge and that the trial judge has then failed or refused to rule within a reasonable time. Accordingly, we deny Keeter ’s petition for writ of mandamus.

REX D. DAVIS Justic e Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Neill (Chief Justice Gray concurring with opinion) Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed August 28, 2019 [OT06]