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, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1477624

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 27, 2021, relator Domingo Amaro-Solis 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 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 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 (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). The copy of 
3

relator’s motion does not bear a file 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 submitted 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 attention by proper means. Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382. 

Moreover, relator failed to include 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, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Zimmerer.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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