in Re Theolonious P. Henry
14-16-00798-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Relator Theolonious P. Henry filed a mandamus petition in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals asking the court to compel the trial judge of the 263rd District Court (Harris County) to grant his motion to reduce sentence.
- Relator alleged his motion to reduce sentence had been pending in the trial court for over 45 days without a ruling.
- Mandamus relief requires showing no adequate remedy at law and that the act to be compelled is ministerial, not discretionary.
- A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on properly filed and pending motions; relator must show the court had a duty, was asked to rule, and failed to rule within a reasonable time.
- Relator sought an order requiring the trial court to grant the motion (i.e., a specific ruling), rather than merely to rule on it.
- The relator also failed to include a file-stamped copy of the motion or evidence that the motion was presented to the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court may compel trial court to grant relator’s motion to reduce sentence | Henry: trial court delayed >45 days; should be compelled to grant sentence reduction | Trial court: appellate court may not direct a specific substantive ruling; relator must show proper filing/presentation | Denied — appellate court cannot direct trial court to grant motion; mandamus denied |
| Whether relator showed entitlement to mandamus to compel a ruling | Henry: seeking relief because no ruling issued | Trial court/Respondent: relator did not provide record showing motion pending or presented | Denied — relator failed to provide file-stamped motion or proof it was presented |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (mandamus prerequisites: no adequate remedy and act must be ministerial)
- In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (trial court has ministerial duty to consider and rule on pending motions)
- Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (mandamus may issue to compel trial court to act on pending motions)
- In re Layton, 257 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008) (elements relator must prove to obtain mandamus to compel ruling)
- In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (relator must establish trial court had duty, was asked to rule, and failed to do so)
- In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (appellate court may not direct trial court to make a specific ruling on a pending motion)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus record must be sufficient to establish entitlement to relief)