Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed September 16 , 2021.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00484

- CR

IN RE DOMINGO AMARO

- SOLIS , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 339th District Court Harris County, T e xas Trial Court Cause No. 1477 62 4



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 27, 2021 , relator Domingo Amaro

- Solis 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 this C ourt to compel the Honorable Te ’ iva J. Bell, presiding judge of the 339th District Court of Harris County , to rule on his motion for DNA testing.2 To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) that the relator has no adequate remedy at law f o r ob taining the relief the relator seeks; and (2) what the relator seeks to compel involves a min isterial 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 file s a mo t io n 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.

— Ho us ton [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (ci ting 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 tr ial court to act. Ramos , 59 8 S.W.3d at 473

. As the party seeking relief, i t is r elator ’ 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 afte r the motion has been sub m itted to the court for a ruling or after the party requested a ruling. See id

. In a criminal mand amus proceeding, t o establish that a motion was filed, a relator must provide the appellate court with either a file

- stamped copy of the motion or oth er pro o f that t he motion is, in fact, filed and pending in the trial
court. Id . at 74 (citing Flanigan , 578 S.W.3d at 6 36) ; In re Henry , 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). The copy of3 relator ’ s motion does not bear a f i le stamp establishing that it is in fact pending in the trial court.
Even if relator had shown that his motion is properly pending, he has not demonstrated that the motion was brought to the attention of the trial court

. Like the motion, relator has subm i tted copies of letters that do not bear a file stamp to demonstrate presentment. The trial court is not required to consider a motion that has not been called to its attent ion by proper means. Henry , 525 S.W.3d at 382. Moreover , relator failed to inclu d e a jurat that satisfies the requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 132.001

. Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly , w e deny re lator ’ s peti tion for writ of mandamus

.

PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Zimmerer. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).