In Re Adam Ahmad Noureddine v. the State of Texas

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00303-CV

In re Adam Ahmad Noureddine

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Adam Ahmad Noureddine, appearing pro se, has filed a notice of appeal that we

construe as a petition for writ of mandamus, in which he complains of the trial court’s failure to

rule on his motion to dismiss and motion for a speedy hearing. Both motions were filed on

March 11, 2024, in response to a motion to adjudicate, in which the State seeks to revoke

Noureddine’s deferred-adjudication community supervision.

To obtain mandamus relief for a trial court’s failure to rule on a properly filed

motion, the relator must establish that a ruling on the motion was requested and that the trial

court has either refused to rule on the motion or failed to rule within a reasonable time. In re

Whitfield, No. 03-19-00582-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 3353, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin

Apr. 22, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding)). Here, the Relator has failed to demonstrate that he

brought the motions to the attention of trial court, see In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861

(Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding) (observing that “mere filing of a motion with a trial court clerk does not equate to a request that the trial court rule on the motion”), and that the

motions have been pending for an unreasonable length of time, see In re Halley, No. 03-15-

00310-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 7188, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin July 14, 2015, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (concluding that six-months delay did not constitute unreasonable length

of time under “failure to rule” analysis). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

__________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Filed: June 27, 2024