in Re Howard Holland
05-21-00435-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 15, 2021Background
- Relator Howard Holland, appearing pro se and apparently an inmate, filed a "Pro Se Motion For The 422nd District Court To Take Judicial Notice Of The Attached Exhibits In The Interest Of Justice Due From Constitutional Violations," styled Ex parte Howard Holland, in cause no. 31610-422 (a criminal case).
- Holland later sent three letters to the trial court requesting a hearing and a ruling on that motion.
- Holland sought mandamus relief in the court of appeals to compel the trial court to rule on the motion; no response was filed by the real party in interest or respondent.
- The court of appeals requested the record and reviewed it; the record did not show whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to rule on the motion after the underlying criminal case ended.
- The court noted that trial courts generally lack authority to rule on motions filed after a criminal case has concluded and that they are not required to notify parties when they decline to act for lack of jurisdiction.
- Because the mandamus record did not establish that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule, the petition for writ of mandamus was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel the trial court to rule on Holland’s motion | Holland: motion properly filed in cause no. 31610-422 and court must rule; he requested ruling/hearing | Trial court/State: court lacks jurisdiction to act on post‑case motion; no duty to rule | Denied — Holland failed to show the trial court had jurisdiction to rule |
| Whether Holland met mandamus elements (ministerial duty and no adequate remedy) | Holland: consideration of a properly filed motion is ministerial and he lacks adequate remedy | Respondent: record does not establish a ministerial duty or jurisdiction; relator bears burden to provide sufficient record | Denied — relator failed to meet burden to show right to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus in criminal cases requires showing a ministerial duty and lack of adequate remedy)
- In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017) (consideration of a properly filed motion is ministerial; relator must provide a record sufficient to establish right to relief)