in Re Milton Jarrod Brown, 10-15-00347-CR

Relator Milton Jarrod Brown filed a motion for appointment of counsel in a post-conviction habeas proceeding and alleges it has been pending over 90 days without a ruling.
Brown sought mandamus relief to compel the trial court judge to rule on that motion.
Mandamus relief in this context requires showing the motion was properly filed, pending a reasonable time, a request for a ruling was made, and the trial court refused to rule.
The court emphasized that the duty to rule is ministerial only after the movant brings the motion to the trial judge’s attention; mere filing with the clerk does not suffice.
The relator bears the burden of providing a sufficient record showing the judge had notice and then failed or refused to rule within a reasonable time.
The court found no record that Brown brought the motion to the trial judge’s attention or that the judge refused to rule, and therefore denied the petition for writ of mandamus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus should compel judge to rule on pending motion for counsel	Brown: motion pending >90 days; judge has not ruled; mandamus appropriate	Respondent: no record showing judge had been notified or refused to rule; procedural defects in filing	Denied — relator failed to show judge was brought the matter to his attention and then refused to rule
Whether mere filing with clerk constitutes request for ruling	Brown: filing alone suffices to require judicial action	Court/Respondent: filing with clerk does not impute notice to judge; must bring to judge’s attention	Held: filing alone is insufficient; movant must bring motion to judge's attention
Whether relator met burden to establish entitlement to mandamus	Brown: presented petition alleging delay and lack of ruling	Court: relator must provide sufficient record and proof of requests for ruling; petition lacked proof of service and required record	Held: relator did not meet burden; record insufficient
Whether appellate court will excuse procedural defects in mandamus petition	Brown: sought relief despite filing deficiencies	Court: invoked Tex. R. App. P. 2 to suspend requirements to expedite matter but still denied on merits	Held: procedural defects were suspended but substantive deficiency fatal to petition

In re Piper, 105 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus granted when act is ministerial and no adequate remedy exists)
State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (orig. proceeding) (standards for mandamus relief against trial judges)
State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding) (consideration of a properly filed motion is ministerial)
In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus may compel ruling after reasonable delay)
In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003) (orig. proceeding) (requirements to obtain mandamus for failure to rule)
In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (orig. proceeding) (trial judge’s duty to rule arises after movant brings matter to judge’s attention)
Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus may issue when motion pending unreasonably long)
In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006) (orig. proceeding) (repeated requests for a ruling support mandamus)
In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (orig. proceeding) (discussing elements needed for mandamus to compel ruling)
In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (orig. proceeding) (relator must provide an adequate record to establish entitlement to mandamus)