in Re: Howard Holland

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 27, 2022
• Docket: 05-22-00368-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed May 27, 2022

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00368-CV No. 05-22-00369-CV No. 05-22-00378-CV

IN RE HOWARD HOLLAND, Relator

Original Proceedings from the 422nd Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 31608-422, 31609-422 & 31610-422

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Nowell Howard Holland has petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel

the trial court to rule on two motions he represents he filed on January 7, 2022. We

deny the petition.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in

that it is not properly certified and is not supported by a record of certified or sworn

documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); In re Butler, 270

S.W.3d 757, 758–59 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); see also TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 132.001 (describing how inmate may authenticate

documents as sworn copies). Furthermore, even if relator had filed a complying petition, he has not shown

the trial court has had a reasonable time to rule upon the motions. See In re Blakeney,

254 S.W.3d 659, 661–62 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (no

mandamus relief absent proof motion was filed, presented to the trial court with a

request for a ruling, and trial court given reasonable time to issue ruling); In re

Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding) (per

curiam) (mandamus relief not available until trial court has had reasonable

opportunity to rule on motion). In this case, relator asserts he filed his motions on

January 7, 2022, reminded the trial court that they were pending by letter dated

March 7, 2022, and filed his petition seeking mandamus relief on April 20, 2022.

Even assuming the truth of relator’s assertions, we cannot conclude relator has

shown he is entitled to mandamus relief after such a short period of time.

We deny relator’s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

220368f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell// 220369f.p05 ERIN A. NOWELL 220378f.p05 JUSTICE

–2–