In Re Jonathan Dyer v. the State of Texas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed September 17, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00648-CR

IN RE JONATHAN DYER, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1686141

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 4, 2024, relator Jonathan Dyer 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 Hazel

Jones, presiding judge of the 174th District Court of Harris County, to rule on relator’s request for a hearing on his motion for speedy trial.

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. Relator has neither provided this Court with a mandamus record to demonstrate that any pending motion has been filed nor has the relator shown that he has brought the pending motion to the attention of the respondent-judge for a ruling. 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). 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.

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, Bourliot, and Zimmerer. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).