Court Opinion

ID: 9410035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 08:09:48.727779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:55.114989
License: Public Domain

In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                        Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                        No. 07-23-00220-CR

                         IN RE CHRISTOPHER J. WARD, RELATOR

                                   ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

                                           July 6, 2023
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Relator, Christopher J. Ward, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus asking

this Court to compel the Honorable William R. Eichman, Judge of the 364th District Court

in Lubbock County to act on various motions and a writ of habeas corpus pending in the

trial court.1 For the reasons expressed herein, the request for relief is denied.

       Relator asserts he has been incarcerated since August 17, 2021, and has filed the

following documents in the trial court:

       •   Motion for Discovery
       •   Motion to Suppress Evidence

       1We note that although Relator’s filing is entitled “Writ of Habeas Corpus,” he seeks action on
documents pending in the trial court which is generally cognizable via mandamus.
       •   Writ of Habeas Corpus
       •   Motion for Continuance and Authorization of Funds to Allow
           Independent Analysis
       •   Motion to Sever

Relator contends there has been no response or acknowledgement to his filings, which

span from October 2022 through February 2023. No other facts or details are provided

relevant to his request for relief.

                                      STANDARD OF REVIEW

       Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when a relator can show (1)

the trial court abused its discretion and (2) no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re N.

Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., 559 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding);

In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam). When seeking mandamus relief, a relator bears the burden of proving these two

requirements. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

       To establish an abuse of discretion, a relator must demonstrate the trial court acted

unreasonably, arbitrarily, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. See

Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241–42 (Tex. 1985).                To

establish no adequate remedy by appeal, a relator must show there is no adequate

remedy at law to address the alleged harm and the act requested is a ministerial act, not

involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist.

Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

Furthermore, to establish a ministerial act, a relator must also show (1) a legal duty to

perform, (2) a demand for performance, and (3) a refusal to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586

S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979).
                                              2
                                           ANALYSIS

      When a motion is properly pending before a trial court, the act of considering and

ruling on the motion is a ministerial act. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157,

158 (Tex. 1992). However, the trial court has a reasonable time within which to perform

that ministerial duty. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). Whether a reasonable period of time has lapsed

depends on the circumstances of each case. Ex parte Barnes, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134–35

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). No bright line demarcates the boundaries

of a reasonable time period. Id. at 135.

      We first address the mandatory requirements for filing a petition for writ of

mandamus in this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Relator has failed to comply with

most of the requirements, some of which are vital to consideration of his complaints. Rule

52.3(k) requires a petition include an Appendix with a certified or sworn copy of any order

or document complained of showing the subject matter of the complaint. TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3(k)(1)(A). Other than a list of motions Relator asserts he filed and the dates of those

filings, no documents accompany the petition.         He does not present any issues,

authorities, or argument for the relief he seeks. Id. at 52.3(f), (h). Nor has he satisfied

his burden to provide a sufficient record on which relief may be granted.

      In addition to compliance with Rule 52.3, a relator must establish his filings were

presented to the trial court for consideration. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Although Relator asserts he provided copies of

his filings to the judge and district attorney, the record does not support that assertion.

                                              3
Merely filing a document with the court clerk does not impute the filing to the trial court.

Id.

       While pro se filings may be reviewed less stringently than those filed by attorneys,

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), pro se

litigants are not exempt from rules of procedure. Pena v. McDowell, 201 S.W.3d 665,

667 (Tex. 2006). This Court will only compel the trial court to perform its ministerial duty

when the record supports its necessity. In re James, No. 07-20-00257-CV, 2020 Tex.

App. LEXIS 8614, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 3, 2020, orig. proceeding).

                                       CONCLUSION

       Relator’s request for mandamus relief is denied.

                                                        Alex L. Yarbrough
                                                             Justice

Do not publish.

                                             4