in Re Roy Lee Boykin, 10-17-00361-CR

Relator Roy Lee Boykin filed a motion seeking post-conviction Chapter 64 DNA testing, but the trial court had not ruled.
Boykin then filed an original mandamus petition in the Tenth Court of Appeals asking the court to compel Judge Matt Johnson to rule on the motion.
Mandamus to compel a ruling is available when a motion is properly filed, brought to the trial judge’s attention, has been pending a reasonable time, and the judge refuses to rule.
The Court emphasized that the duty to rule is ministerial only after the movant has brought the motion to the judge’s attention; mere filing is insufficient.
Boykin bore the burden to provide a record showing he requested a ruling and that the judge failed or refused to rule; the record did not show such a request.
The petition also had procedural defects (failure to comply with appellate rules), but the Court suspended those rules and denied relief on the merits for lack of proof that Boykin alerted the trial judge and was denied a ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus should compel the trial judge to rule on Boykin’s Chapter 64 motion	Boykin contends the trial court has an obligation to rule and has unreasonably delayed	Trial judge has not been shown to have been asked to rule; duty to act is not triggered by mere filing	Denied — no record showing Boykin brought the motion to the judge’s attention and the judge then failed/refused to rule
Whether the motion was pending a reasonable time to justify mandamus	Boykin implies pendency alone warrants mandamus	Court requires (1) proper filing, (2) request for ruling, and (3) refusal to rule	Denied — relator failed to prove he requested a ruling and was refused
Whether the act of considering a properly filed motion is ministerial	Boykin treats consideration as ministerial and mandamus-appropriate	Court: ministerial duty arises only after movant brings motion to judge’s attention	Held — ministerial duty exists but only once movant has brought the matter to judge’s attention
Whether procedural defects in the mandamus petition warranted dismissal	Boykin’s petition lacked required formalities	Court noted defects but invoked Rule 2 to suspend rules to expedite decision	Court suspended rules but denied relief on substantive grounds

In re Piper, 105 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003) (mandamus available when act sought is ministerial and no adequate remedy exists)
State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus standards)
State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 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 a trial court to rule on a motion pending a reasonable time)
In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003) (orig. proceeding) (requirements for mandamus to compel ruling)
In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (orig. proceeding) (movant must request a ruling; mere filing is insufficient)
Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (orig. proceeding) (mandamus to compel ruling when trial court unreasonably delays)
In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006) (orig. proceeding) (relator must show request for a ruling)
In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (orig. proceeding) (requirement that movant bring motion to judge’s attention)
In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (orig. proceeding) (relator bears burden to provide record establishing right to mandamus)