Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

March 22, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00150-CR

IN RE DEANDRE DYNELL DEBOEST, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1737576

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 7, 2022, relator Deandre Dynell Deboest 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 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 related to my arrest, and the District Attorney 
2

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 

adequate remedy 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. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial 

duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and pending before it, and 

mandamus 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 relator to 

be entitled to mandamus relief, 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 was submitted to the court for a ruling or after the party requested a ruling. 

In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. 

proceeding).

As the party seeking mandamus relief, relator has the burden of providing 

this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Id. at 

73–74; Henry, 525 S.W.3d at 382; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must 

file with the mandamus 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 the motion was filed, the relator must provide 

1 This original proceeding is duplicative of relator’s petition 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 proof that the motion in fact was 

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

a motion with a court clerk does not show that the motion was brought to the trial 

court’s attention for a ruling because the clerk’s knowledge is not imputed to the 

trial court. In re Ramos, 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2020, orig. proceeding).

Relator has not provided this court with a mandamus record to demonstrate 

that he filed either a motion to set aside the indictment or a motion to dismiss for 

failure to for failure to provide a speedy trial was filed in the trial court. Similarly, 

there is no record that relator has brought a pending motion to the attention of the 

respondent-judge for a ruling. Mere filing is insufficient because the clerk’s 

knowledge is not imputed to 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. Relator 

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, 592 S.W.3d 894, 902 n.47 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2018). In the 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 writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

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

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