Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and 

Dissenting Opinions filed May 19, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00744-CR

NO. 14-21-00745-CR

NO. 14-21-00746-CR

NO. 14-21-00747-CR

IN RE ALVA Z. MCGRATH JUNIOR, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 940494, 940495, 940496 & 881224

MEMORANDUM MAJORITY OPINION

On December 20, 2021, relator Alva Z. McGrath Junior 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 Ana 

Martinez, presiding judge of the 179th District Court of Harris County, to rule on 
2

his motion to compel the Harris County District Attorney’s Office to give DNA 

results to relator and his motion to appoint counsel. 

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. Id.

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); see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (relator’s petition must include an appendix with “a certified or 

sworn copy of . . . the document showing the matter complained of”); Tex. R. App. 

P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with his petition “a certified or sworn copy of every 

document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any 

underlying proceeding”). To establish that a motion was filed, the relator must 

provide either a file-stamped copy of the motion or other proof that the motion in 

fact was filed and is pending before the trial court. Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 74. 

Relator previously filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting the same 

relief as he does in this petition. See In re McGrath, Nos. 14-21-00381-CR, 14-21-

00382-CR, 14-21-00383-CR, and 14-21-00384-CR, 2021 WL 3359244, at *1 (Tex. 
3

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 21, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication). We denied relator’s first petition for failing to provide 

a record sufficient to show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Id. Specifically, 

relator had not provided this court with file-stamped copies of his motions or other 

proof that the motions in fact were filed and pending in the trial court and the trial 

court had not acted on those motions within a reasonable time. Id.

Relator states in his current petition that he has unsuccessfully attempted to 

obtain file-stamped copies of his motions from the clerk’s office. Relator has 

included a copy of the certified mail card showing that someone at the district clerk’s 

office signed for it on September 2, 2021. See Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 71, 74. Relator 

asks this court to accept the copies in the mandamus record as having been filed in 

the trial court. Assuming arguendo that relator’s motions have been filed and are 

pending in the trial court, relator has not shown that the trial court is aware of the 

motions or that a reasonable time had passed without the trial court taking any action 

on his motions. See Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 74. 

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 Justices Wise, Jewell, and Spain (Spain, J., dissenting).

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