Opinion issued January 14, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 00860
- CR

——————————— IN RE JONATHAN ABRAM , Relat or

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDU M OPINION
Rel ator, Jonath a n Abram, seeks mandamus relie f in connection with the appointment of new counsel in the trial court. 1
Discussion
A relator in a ma ndamus proceeding must show that (1) he has no adequate remedy a t law and ( 2) what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act tha t do es not

1 The und erlying case is The State of Texas v. Jon athan Abram , cause number 1572078, pending in the 178th Distr ict Court of Harris County, Texas, th e Honorabl e Kel li Johnson presiding.2

involve a disc retionary o r judicial decision. In re Lozano , No. 14

- 12

- 00049, 2012 WL 274076, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2012 , ori g.
proc e eding) (per curiam) (citing St ate ex rel. Young v

. Sixth Judicial Dist. Cour t o f Appeal s , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding)).
“Cons iderat ion of a request or motion that is properly filed and before the court is a
ministerial act.” Id. ( cit ing State ex rel. Cu r r y v. Gr ay , 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App

. 1 987) ( orig. proceeding)).
To receiv e mandamus relief, a relator must show that “the trial court received, was aware of, and asked to rule on the motion.” I d. (citing In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2003 , orig. proceed i ng) )

. Further, t he petition for man damus must be accompanied with an appen dix that includes, among ot her things, “ a ce rtified or sworn co py of the d ocument showing

t he matter complained of. ” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.3(k) ; Villarreal , 96 S.W.3d at 710 (identify ing four mandamus r equirements: court ’ s l e gal duty to p e r form non
discretionary act, asking of court to perform act, fai lure of cou rt to d o so , and
inclusion of a

ppendix with petition )

. Relator has not shown that he moved for relief in the trial court or that the
trial court refused to rule on his motion. 2 Moreover, r elator has not shown he has

2 Even if the court had received such a request, it would have no duty to rule on it. “[A] trial court has no duty to se arch for counsel agreeable to an indigent defendant. ” In re Aitch , No. 01

- 03

- 01185

- CR, 2003 WL 22 8 62682, at * 1 (Tex.3

no ad equate remedy by appeal. “ If relator is co ntend ing that his appointed c ounsel
is r endering ineffective assistance, trial counsel ’ s performance is a matter that may be addressed on direct appeal if adequately supported by the record. ” In re Aitch , No. 01

- 03

- 01185

- CR, 2003 WL 22862 682, at *1 (Tex. A pp.

— H ouston [1st Dist.]
Dec. 4, 2003, orig. proceeding ) (per curiam) (citing Bone v. State , 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) )

. Relator also failed to attach an appendix to his pe tit ion.
We deny r e lator ’ s petition for writ o f mandamus. All pending mo ti ons filed
in connection with th is original proceeding are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly , and Countiss

. Do not publish

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).

App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 4, 2003, orig. proceeding ) (citing Buntion v. Harmon , 827 S.W.2d 94 5, 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Solis v. S tate, 792 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) ).