In Re Reidie James Jackson v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00156-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE REIDIE JAMES JACKSON

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina¹

On April 2, 2025, relator Reidie James Jackson filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus through which he asserts that the trial court has failed to comply with its ministerial duty to rule on his application for a writ of habeas corpus and for immediate release.

“Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances.” State ex rel. Wice v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps., 581 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (orig. proceeding). In a criminal case, the relator must establish both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision, and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). If the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding). This burden includes providing a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d at 927; In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d at 839; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (delineating the required contents for the appendix in an original proceeding), R. 52.7(a) (providing that the relator “must file” a record including specific matters); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”).

“If a party properly files a motion with the trial court in a criminal case, the court has a ministerial duty to rule on the motion within a reasonable time after the motion has *3 been submitted to the court for a ruling or after the party has requested a ruling.” In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). A relator seeking relief for the failure to rule must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320, 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106, 106–07 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). The relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on the motion. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). Merely filing a document with the district clerk neither imputes the clerk’s knowledge of the filing to the trial court nor equates to a request that the trial court rule on the motion. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d at 322; In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d at 107. Whether a reasonable period has elapsed is dependent on the circumstances of each case. In re Black, 640 S.W.3d 894, 897 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the limited record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Here, relator has provided this Court with: (1) a copy of a letter dated March 14, 2025, which is not file-stamped, from relator to the judge of the trial court requesting it to rule; and (2) a letter from the Matagorda County Indigence Coordinator to relator stating that, “The Court has received your letter dated 3/14/2025,” *4 and it has “sent a copy of [relator’s] letter to the District Attorney Steven Reis.” In short, relator has not met his burden to establish that the trial court had a legal duty to rule, was asked to rule, and failed or refused to rule within a reasonable time. See In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d at 321; In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d at 106–07. Accordingly, relator has not established the right to mandamus relief. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the 7th day of April, 2025.

Footnotes

[1] See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).