Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00190-CR

IN RE Pablo Sanchez CAMBEROS

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 2, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS CONDITIONALLY GRANTED IN PART AND 

DISMISSED IN PART

Relator is a noncitizen who was arrested under Operation Lone Star, processed, and 

released on bond. After his bonded release, relator was removed from the country. Following his 

removal, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus arguing the trial court failed to rule on two 

filings—his application for writ of habeas corpus and his motion to urge. Relator also filed a 

motion to stay the underlying proceeding pending our final resolution of his mandamus petition, 

which we granted in part by staying all pretrial settings requiring relator’s in-person appearance.2

Relator argues the trial court has failed to rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus 

and motion to urge. He concludes that, because his underlying habeas application is meritorious, 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13692CR, styled State of Texas v. Pablo Sanchez Camberos, pending in the 

County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth and the Honorable Susan D. Reed 

presiding.

2 Our stay order issued on March 8, 2023. 
04-23-00190-CR

- 2 -

he has a clear right to mandamus relief. Real party in interest, the State of Texas, first responds 

that relator cannot satisfy all the failure-to-rule elements. Next, the State contends relator is not 

entitled to mandamus relief because his underlying habeas application is meritless. 

A trial court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly filed and timely presented motion.

State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). When a filing “is properly filed and pending before a trial 

court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that [filing] is a ministerial act, and 

mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act.” In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). “However, the trial court has a reasonable time within 

which to perform this ministerial duty.” Id. “Accordingly, if a court unnecessarily delays ruling, 

mandamus will lie in appropriate situations.” Id. Nevertheless, a reviewing court may not use 

mandamus relief to direct the trial court to rule in a particular way. See Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210

(“While a trial court has a ministerial duty to rule upon a motion that is properly and timely 

presented to it for a ruling, in general it has no ministerial duty to rule a certain way on that 

motion.”) (citation omitted). That is, we, as a reviewing court, may not review and rule on the 

underlying merits of relator’s filings. See id.; In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) (noting after the failure to rule elements are satisfied, this court 

has “jurisdiction to direct the trial court to consider and rule on pending matters; however, we may 

not tell the trial court what ruling it should make.”). Rather, this court may only review whether: 

(1) relator properly filed his habeas application and motion to urge; (2) the trial court was aware 

of relator’s filings; and (3) the trial court refused to rule or failed to rule after an unreasonable time 

period. See id.

On February 27, 2023, relator filed his application for writ of habeas corpus seeking 

discharge and dismissal of his underlying case based on equal protection principles. The same day, 
04-23-00190-CR

- 3 -

he asked the trial court to set a hearing on his habeas application. On February 28, 2023, relator 

filed a motion to urge the trial court to rule on his habeas application. When he had not received a 

ruling on either his habeas application or motion to urge by March 6, 2023, relator filed his 

mandamus petition.

Although we stayed proceedings in the underlying matter requiring the in-person 

attendance of relator, our stay order expressly noted that any pretrial settings not requiring relator’s 

in-person appearance may proceed. Despite being able to rule on relator’s habeas application, the 

trial court has failed to do so. Under these facts, we hold that the trial court’s failure to rule on 

relator’s habeas application warrants mandamus relief.

3 See Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210; Mendoza,

131 S.W.3d 167.

Finally, because of the stay granted by this court, relator’s complaint about his required inperson attendance at the March 9, 2023 pretrial hearing is moot. See In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 

528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (holding mandamus petition was moot where 

relator received relief sought). We, therefore, conditionally grant in part and dismiss in part 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. The stay imposed on March 8, 2023 is lifted.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

3 Because we are unable to review the merits of relator’s habeas application without a ruling from the trial court, we 

do not address relator’s second argument. See Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210.