In Re Gwandoya A. Bush v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 17, 2025
• Docket: 09-25-00328-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00328-CR __________________

IN RE GWANDOYA A. BUSH

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 9th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22-08-10015 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 4, 2025, Gwandoya A. Bush filed a pro se petition for a writ of

mandamus. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. Bush states that he is on community

supervision in Trial Cause Number 22-08-10015 and that he filed an application for

a writ of habeas corpus that the trial court has not yet ruled on. Bush further states

that in September 2025 he filed a Motion to Suspend All Conditions of Community

Supervision pending the writ.

As mandamus relief, Bush asks this Court to compel the trial court to grant

Bush’s motion for interim relief in the article 11.072 habeas corpus proceeding. As

1 temporary relief in this Court, Bush asks this Court to suspend all conditions of

community supervision in Trial Cause Number 22-08-10015 pending our resolution

of the mandamus petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10.

To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that 1) he

has no adequate remedy at law, and 2) what he seeks to compel is ministerial,

involving no discretion. In re State ex rel. Best, 616 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2021) (orig. proceeding). Generally, consideration of a motion properly filed

and before the trial court is ministerial, but deciding how to rule after considering a

motion is not a ministerial act. State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128

(Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Bush cites no authority supporting his argument that he is

entitled to immediate suspension of the community supervision order upon filing the

habeas corpus petition under article 11.072.

To prevail in a mandamus proceeding that seeks to compel a trial court to rule

on a motion, a relator must show 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 Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). As the party seeking mandamus relief,

Bush has the burden of providing a certified or sworn copy of every document that

is material to his claim. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a). Documents that are material to

his claim include, at a minimum: (1) his application for a writ of habeas corpus under

2 article 11.072; (2) the Motion to Suspend All Conditions of Community Supervision;

(3) the Order of Community Supervision and any orders amending or modifying

conditions of supervision; (4) any response by the State to the article 11.072

application; (5) response by the State to the Motion to Suspend All Conditions of

Community Supervision; (6) any Designation of Issues signed by the trial court; (7)

the docket sheet; and (8) any communication requesting a ruling on the motion.

Bush’s mandamus petition refers to an appendix but he failed to file an appendix

with his mandamus petition.

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for

temporary relief. See id. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 16, 2025 Opinion Delivered September 17, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.