In re Foster
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11377
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Relator Leslie Ray Foster, an inmate acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the Hon. Kerry Neves, presiding judge of the 10th District Court of Galveston County, to hold a hearing on an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking personal bond or bond reduction allegedly filed on September 11, 2016.
- Relator claimed the trial court had failed to rule on the habeas application within a reasonable time after submission or request for ruling.
- Relator did not file a certified or sworn copy of the habeas application or other record showing the application was filed and brought to the trial court’s attention.
- Relator’s petition lacked the certification required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j) that factual statements are supported by evidence in the appendix or record.
- The court noted that pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural rules and that the relator bears the burden of providing a sufficient record to obtain mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator is entitled to mandamus to compel a hearing on habeas application | Foster: trial court failed to rule on habeas application within a reasonable time and should be compelled to hold a hearing | Trial court: (implicit) no ruling shown; procedural defects in relator’s filing | Denied—relator failed to supply record showing filing or that ruling was requested within a reasonable time |
| Whether relator met burden to provide record supporting mandamus | Foster: alleged filing on Sept. 11, 2016 establishes entitlement | Court: relator did not provide certified/sworn copies of the habeas application or other required documents | Denied—insufficient record for mandamus relief |
| Whether petition complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j) certification requirement | Foster: (no certification included) | Court: Rule requires certification that factual statements are supported by competent evidence in appendix/record | Denied—petition lacked required certification |
| Whether pro se status excuses procedural noncompliance | Foster: pro se inmate might argue for leniency | Court: pro se litigants must follow procedural rules and are held to same standards as attorneys | Denied—pro se status does not excuse failures |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (trial court must rule on motions within a reasonable time)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator bears burden to provide sufficient record for mandamus relief)
- Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules)
- Williams v. Bayview-Realty Assocs., 420 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (pro se litigants held to same standards as attorneys)
- In re Layton, 257 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008) (relator must show trial court failed to rule within reasonable time after ruling was requested)
- In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003) (same requirement that relator show ruling was requested)