in Re: Alex Ramiro Prado
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 534
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Relator Alex Ramiro Prado filed a mandamus petition complaining the trial court failed to rule on a motion for speedy trial and other motions (motion to dismiss, request to release warrant, writ of habeas corpus).
- Mandamus requires showing no adequate remedy at law and that the act to be compelled is ministerial, not discretionary.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether Prado had an adequate remedy on appeal and whether the record showed the trial court had a duty to rule and was asked but refused to do so.
- The mandamus petition lacked certification under Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j) and did not include an appendix or record establishing what motions were filed or when.
- Prado did not prove the motions were properly filed or that he had called them to the trial court’s attention and requested rulings.
- The court denied the petition: speedy-trial relief was not appropriate by mandamus (adequate remedy on appeal) and the record was insufficient to compel rulings on the other motions.
Issues
| Issue | Relator's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to mandamus for speedy trial | Prado sought immediate mandamus to compel speedy-trial relief | Trial court rulings on speedy-trial claims are reviewable on appeal; mandamus not appropriate | Denied — adequate remedy by appeal (no mandamus) |
| Duty to rule on properly filed motions | Prado asserted the court failed to rule on motions (dismissal, warrant release, habeas) | Court pointed to lack of record showing motions were properly filed and called to the court’s attention | Denied — relator failed to show trial court had duty and refused to act |
| Sufficiency of petition record for mandamus | Prado relied on his petition to establish entitlement | Petition not certified and lacked appendix/record proving filings and notice to trial court | Denied — insufficient record to obtain extraordinary relief |
| Burden to show ministerial act | Prado argued consideration of filed motions is ministerial and thus mandamus-appropriate | Court required proof trial court had legal duty, was asked to rule, and failed to do so | Denied — relator did not meet burden to show ministerial refusal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (mandamus requires no adequate remedy at law and relief must be for a ministerial act)
- Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (defendant has adequate remedy on appeal for dismissal on speedy-trial grounds)
- State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (consideration of a properly filed motion is a ministerial act)
- In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003) (mandamus burden: show court had duty, was asked to rule, and failed to do so)
- In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003) (same standard for proving entitlement to mandamus relief)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator must provide a record sufficient to establish right to relief)