Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

March 22 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 22
- 001 50
- CR

IN RE DEANDRE DYNELL DEBOEST , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 262nd District Court Harris County, Te x as Trial Court C ause No. 1737576


### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 7, 2022 , relator Deandre Dynell Deboest 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 Court to compel the Honorable Lori Chambers Gray, presiding judge of the 262nd District Court of Harris County , to “to dismiss this case, because the police officer tampered with a government record by falsifying an offense report relate d to my arrest, an d the District Attorney2

helped charge report to conceal his conduct and rush it to the grand jury, because it was almost the 180th day, and they wanted to avoid him being fired and them sued for false arrest . . . .” 1 To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show that (1) he has no

a d equate remed y at law to redress his alleged harm, and (2) what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not a discretionary act. In re Powell , 516 S.W.3d 488, 494

– 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. procee ding)

. A tri a l court has a ministerial duty to cons i der and rule on motions properl y filed and pending before it, and

man damus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re Henry , 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 ( Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). For r e lator to be entitled to mandamus relie f , the record must show (1) the motion was filed and brought to the at tention of the respondent

- judge for a ruling, and (2) the respondent

-

judge has not ru led on the motion within a reasonable time after the motion wa s submitted to the court for a ruling o r after the party requested a ru ling. In re Gomez , 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. Ap p.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). As the party seeking mandamu s relief, relator has th e burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish his ri g ht to mandamus relief. I d. at 7 3

– 74 ; He nry , 525 S.W.3d at 382 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) ( relator must f ile with the mandamus petition “a certi fied or sworn copy of ev ery document that is material to the r e lator ’ s claim for relief and that was f iled in any underlying proceeding”)

. To establish that the motion was filed, the relator must provide

1 This or iginal proceeding is duplicative of r elator ’ s pe tition for writ of mandamus filed the same day , March 7, 2022, and assigned 14

- 22

- 00149

- CR.3

either a file

- stamped copy of the motion or other p roof that the motion in fact was filed and is pending before t h e trial court. Gomez , 602 S.W.3d at 7 4

. Merely fil ing a motion with a court clerk does n ot show th at the motion was brought to the trial
court ’ s attention for a ruling because the clerk ’ s kno wledge is not imputed to the trial court. In re Ramos , 598 S. W .3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th D ist.] 2020, o rig. proceeding).
R elator has not provided this court with a mandamus record to demonstrate that he filed either a moti on to set aside the in dictment or a motion to dismiss for failure to for failure to p rovide a speedy trial was filed in the t rial court. Similarly, there is no record that relator has brough t a pending motion to the attention of the respondent

-

judge for a ruling. Mere filing is insufficient beca use the clerk’s knowledge is not imputed t o the trial judge. See Ramos , 598 S.W.3d at 473. The respondent

-

judge is not required to consider a motion that has not been called to the trial court’s attention by proper means. See Henry , 525 S.W.3d at 382. Rela tor has not made the requisite showing

. Moreover, as set forth in relator ’s petition for writ of mandamus, relator is represented by counsel. A defendant in a criminal law matter is not entitled to hybrid representation. Jenkins v. State , 5 92 S.W.3d 894, 902 n.47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). In t he absence of a right to hybrid representation, relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for this court’s review. See Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Turner v. State , 805 S.W.2d 423, 425 n.1 (Tex. Crim

. App. 1991).4

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator ’ s petition for w r it of mandamus

. P ER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Chris topher and Jus t ic es Zimmerer and Wilson. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).