in Re: Anthony Dorsett Purvis, 12-17-00144-CR

Relator Anthony Dorsett Purvis filed a motion for DNA testing and a motion for appointment of counsel on January 12, 2017, in an Anderson County criminal case.
Purvis completed and returned a court form for appointment of counsel on February 2, 2017.
Purvis sent a letter to the court clerk on March 16, 2017, asking about the status of his DNA testing motion and received no response.
Purvis sought a writ of mandamus from the Twelfth Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to rule on his DNA testing motion.
The appellate court noted Purvis did not file the underlying record required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(1).
The court also found Purvis did not show he had called his motion to the trial court’s attention, a prerequisite to compel a ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is available to compel the trial court to rule on Purvis's DNA testing motion	Purvis argued the trial court failed to rule on his timely-filed motion and thus mandamus is appropriate	Trial court (respondent) effectively argued no relief because the record doesn’t show the motion was called to the court’s attention and required record was not filed	Denied — Purvis failed to show mandamus available: did not file required record and did not establish the motion was called to the court’s attention

State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (mandamus prerequisites in criminal cases: adequate remedy and nondiscretionary duty)
In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2003) (elements required to compel a trial court to consider and rule on a motion)
In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2001) (relator must show motion was called to trial court’s attention; clerk’s knowledge is not imputed to judge)