Case Information

*1 Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 4, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00759-CR

IN RE JAMES THOMAS GREEN, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS

248th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 715266 MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 26, 2016, relator James Thomas Green filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Katherine Cabaniss, presiding judge of the 248th District Court of Harris County, to rule on his petition for declaratory judgment, petition for writ of *2 mandamus, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and motion for the appointment of counsel.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Consideration of a motion that is properly filed and before the court is a ministerial act. State ex. Rel. Curry v. Gray , 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig. proceeding) (opinion on reh’g).

A relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. In re Layton , 257 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Molina , 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). The trial court is not required to consider a motion that has not been called to its attention by proper means. , 257 S.W.3d at 795.

It is relator’s burden to provide a sufficient record to establish that he is entitled to relief. See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not done so. Relator has not included a file-stamped copy his petitions or motions, establishing that they are pending in the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k).

Relator also has not shown that his petitions and motions have been presented to the trial court. The trial court is not required to consider a motion that has not been called to its attention by proper means. , 257 S.W.3d at 795.

Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).