### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 02 00 -C R

______________________________

I N RE: JARRA RD MCG AR

Y

Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , M o s e l e y

a n d C o r n e l i u s * , JJ. Me mor a nd

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr iss

______________________________________ *Chief J ustice, Retired, Sitting by Assignme nt23

MEMORANDUM OPI NI ON
Jar ra rd Mc Ga ry wa s c on vic te d of mur de r in 19 97

. Sin c e 20 01 , Mc Ga ry ha s, in v a ri ou s w a y s,
soug ht to obtain DNA testing to undermine his conviction. His latest motion, filed Fe bruar y 6, 2007, in the Fifth Judicial District Court in Bowie County , seeks a ppointment of an exp er t and an or der for post-c onviction DNA testing under Chapte r 64 o f the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure. O n October 9 , 2 0 07, the trial cour t held a hea

ring on McGa

ry ' s motion and requeste d post-hear ing briefi n g, which wa s dated De cembe r 19, 2007. Two times since the n—Marc h 24 and May 27,
20 08 —M c Ga ry ' s c o u n s e l r e m i n d e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t o f t h e p e n d i n g m o t i o n a n d r e q u e s t e d it s ruling

. Finally , by letter dated J uly 10, 2008, McGa ry ' s counsel aske d the State to contac t the trial
court a nd ask for a ruling on the motion. No ruling ha s been ma de. On Octobe r 8, 2008, McGa ry filed a petition f

or writ of mandamus asking us to order the trial court to rule on his motion. We conditionally g rant the pe tition. The State' s response to Mc Gar y ' s petition was rec eived Oc tober 29, 2008. I n that response , the State asser

ts tha t, be cause the aff

idavit r equire d by

Section 64.01 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Procedur e wa s not attache d to McGar y ' s motion, t h e m o t i o n was not ripe f or dec ision and that
McGa ry ' s motion wil l become moot Nove mber 14, 2008, by being ruled on a t that time.
To e sta bli sh e nti tle me nt to ma nd a mus re lie f, the re la tor mus t sh ow that th e re is n o a de qu a te

reme dy at law to re dress the a lleg ed har m and that the ac t to be compelled is pure ly minist eria l. Al v ar e z v
. Ei gh th Cou rt of A

pp e als , 977 S.W .2d 590, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (orig . proce eding );4

Stotts v. W

isser , 89 4 S.W. 2d 36 6, 36 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ) (o ri g . pr oc e e di ng). A n act is minist erial "w h er e t h e l aw c lear ly spells out the duty

to be per formed . . . w ith such cer tainty that

no th in g is l eft to th e ex erci se of d is cret io n o r j ud gment ." Te x . D e p't o f Co rre c tio ns v . D ale hit e , 623
S.W .2d 420, 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (orig . proce eding ). Wit hin a re asonable amount of time, a trial court must consider and r ule on a motion broug ht to the court' s attention. In re Bonds , 5 7 S

. W

. 3 d 4 5 6 , 4 5 7 (T ex . Ap p . — S an An t o n i o 2 0 0 1 , o ri g.
proce eding ). This includes ruling s on motions for DNA t esting and the a ppointment of counsel for the purpose of

pursuing DNA testing under Chapter 64 of t he Tex as C ode of Crimi nal Proce dure.
In re Cas h , 99 S.W.3 d 286 , 288 (T e x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 03 , o ri g . p ro c e e din g ); In re Dimas , 88
S.W .3d 349, 35 1 (T ex . App.—San Antonio 2002, orig . proce eding ). McGa ry ' s motion has been pending and ripe for a ruling for ten months, and counsel has t wice urg ed the trial court to rule. Tha t delay is certa inly

bey ond a re asonable time. Whil e we have jurisdiction to direct the trial cour t to procee d and rule , we may not tell the court wha t ruling it should make. Se e Cro fts v . Cour t of Civ il A

pp e als , 362 S.W .2d 101 (Tex. 1962) (o ri g . p ro c e e din g ); Sta te e x re l. Hi ll v
. Cou rt of

Ap pe als , Fi fth Di st. , 3 4 S. W. 3 d

9 2 4 , 9 2 7 n . 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2001) (orig . proce eding ).5

We c on dit ion a lly

g ra nt M c Ga ry ' s p e tit ion

fo r w ri t of

ma nd a mus . T he wr it w ill iss ue on ly if the trial cour

t fails to rule on McGa

ry ' s motion within twenty -one day s from the date of this opini on.

J o s h R

. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: November 5, 2008 Date D ecide d: November 6, 2008
Do No t Pu

bli sh