in Re: Juan Enriquez
12-15-00306-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 16, 2015Background
- Relator Juan Enriquez, a Texas prisoner, had an order of dismissal/judgment signed by the 369th District Court on April 22, 2015; the district clerk did not mail the order to Enriquez until July 1, 2015 (postmark) and prison delivery occurred mid-July.
- Enriquez filed a verified motion to vacate and correct judgment (mailed July 16, 2015; received by the clerk July 24, 2015) and later a motion for nunc pro tunc corrected order (filed Sept. 21, 2015) requesting an evidentiary hearing under Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a to establish when he first received notice.
- Enriquez sought subpoenas for the prison mailroom supervisor and the Anderson County district clerk to prove the date he actually received notice.
- The trial judge (Hon. Bascom W. Bentley III) did not rule on the motions for several months despite Enriquez’s demand prior to mandamus and a warning he would seek relief.
- Enriquez filed an original petition for writ of mandamus in the Twelfth Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to hold the evidentiary hearing and rule on his motions so appellate timetables could be determined under Rule 306a and Lynd.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on Enriquez's motions | Enriquez: motions were properly presented (mailbox rule), invoke Rule 306a; trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine when he received notice and must rule promptly | Respondent (trial judge): (not argued in detail in petition) implicitly argues no action required or delay permissible | Court of Appeals mandamus petition alleges abuse of discretion for failure to timely act; relief sought to compel hearing and ruling |
| Whether Rule 306a permits restarting post-judgment timetables when notice was received >20 days after signing | Enriquez: Rule 306a and Lynd allow periods to run from date of receipt if sworn motion and hearing show receipt >20 days and <90 days after signing | Opposing position would contest applicability if receipt not proven or motion untimely | Enriquez relies on Lynd to justify an evidentiary hearing; mandamus seeks to enforce that procedure |
| Whether Enriquez has an adequate remedy other than mandamus | Enriquez: no adequate remedy because appeal was dismissed and appellate relief depends on the trial court first holding the evidentiary hearing | Respondent: (not detailed) could argue normal appellate process suffices | Petition argues mandamus is appropriate because delay prevents any effective appeal |
| Whether demand prior to mandamus was sufficient | Enriquez: served a demand to set the motion for hearing by Oct 10, 2015 and warned he would seek mandamus | Respondent: (not detailed) no response to demand | Petition asserts the demand was made and ignored, supporting mandamus relief |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Amir-Shariff, 357 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (timely ruling on pretrial motions; failure to rule may be abuse of discretion)
- In re Lawson, 357 S.W.3d 134 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (mandamus standard for correcting clear abuse of discretion)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus jurisdiction and standards)
- In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 450 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004) (trial court must rule on properly presented pretrial motions within a reasonable time)
- In re Lynd Co., 195 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. 2006) (post-judgment timetables run from date of receipt when Rule 306a requirements met)
- Safety-Kleer Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (failure to rule can constitute abuse of discretion)