In Re Eric Marques v. the State of Texas

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00659-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ERIC MARQUES

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

Relator Eric Marques has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking “to

compel the trial court to vacate an improper non-suit, reinstate the habeas corpus

proceeding, and sign the queued order granting habeas relief and directing expunction.”

Relator alleges that on December 2, 2025, he filed a motion in the trial court seeking the

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). foregoing relief; however, the trial court has failed in its ministerial duty to act on his motion

by granting the requested relief.

In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish

both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary

or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged

harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding);

In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam);

In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the

relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be

denied. See State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d

207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus

relief. See id.; In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021,

orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of

mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). “The petition

must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate

citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h). Relator’s

burden includes providing a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. In

re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding); In re

Pena, 619 S.W.3d at 839; see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (delineating the required

2 form and contents of a petition in an original proceeding); id. R. 52.7(a) (providing that the

relator “must file” a record including specific matters).

“If a party properly files a motion with the trial court in a criminal case, the court

has a ministerial duty to rule on the motion within a reasonable time after the motion has

been submitted to the court for a ruling or after the party has requested a ruling.” In re

Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). A

relator seeking relief for the failure to rule 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 Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320, 321 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d

106, 106–07 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re

Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). The relator

must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on the

motion. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig.

proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig.

proceeding). Merely filing a document with the district clerk neither imputes the clerk’s

knowledge of the filing to the trial court nor equates to a request that the trial court rule

on the motion. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d at 322; In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d at 107. Whether a

reasonable period has elapsed is dependent on the circumstances of each case. In re

Black, 640 S.W.3d 894, 897 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the limited record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not

3 met his burden to obtain relief. Here, relator has neither shown that he lacks an adequate

remedy by appeal nor that the trial court has failed in its ministerial duty to rule.

Accordingly, relator has not established the right to mandamus relief. We deny the petition

for writ of mandamus.

JON WEST Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the 12th day of December, 2025.