Court Opinion

ID: 9838979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-10 07:10:26.763379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:09.807683
License: Public Domain

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and
Dissenting Opinions filed September 7, 2023.

                                      In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                NO. 14-23-00634-CR

                   IN RE DAVID JOEL JOHNSON, Relator

                          ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
                            WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                              263rd District Court
                              Harris County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 1802642

                 MEMORANDUM MAJORITY OPINION

      On August 28, 2023, relator David Joel Johnson 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 Melissa
M. Morris, presiding judge of the 263rd District Court of Harris County, to appoint
him counsel to perfect his appeal.
      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
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

                                         2
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 any documents filed in the
underlying proceeding. There is no mandamus record to demonstrate that a motion
for appointment of appellate counsel is pending 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. Even if
relator showed that his motion is properly pending in the trial court and the trial
court was made aware of it, relator has not shown that it has been pending for an
unreasonable period of time. See Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 73.

      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 Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                         3