In Re Jack Lee King v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 12, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00053-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00053-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE JACK LEE KING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Jack Lee King contends that the

trial court has abused its discretion by failing to enforce a judgment signed on February

10, 2022, in a partition suit. Relator asserts, in short, that he is entitled to a share of the

proceeds from the sale of the property at issue; however, the trial court has not responded

to his requests for distribution.

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). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on

appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding). “The

relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.,

492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827

S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (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.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must provide an appendix

and record sufficient to support the claim for relief. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3,

52.7(a).

To obtain mandamus relief for the trial court’s refusal to rule on a motion, the relator

must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable

time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to

rule. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320, 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d 743, 748

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2014, orig. proceeding); In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d

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

2 court rule on the motion. In re Ramos, 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding); In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d at 322; In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d at

107.

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

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

burden to obtain relief. Relator has provided this Court with copies of: (1) the file-stamped

“Order Granting Judgment for Plaintiff and Directing Sale of Property” signed on February

10, 2022; (2) relator’s “Petition for Funds Held in the 319th Judicial District Court

Registry,” allegedly filed on or about July 20, 2023; (3) a letter dated July 6, 2024,

addressed to the clerk of the 319th District Court requesting the issuance of a writ of

execution on the judgment; and (4) a letter dated October 28, 2024, addressed to the

clerk of the 319th District Court making a second request for the issuance of a writ of

execution on the judgment. Other than the judgment, none of these documents are file-

stamped. Further, nothing here indicates that the trial court received, was aware of, and

was asked to rule on relator’s requests for distribution. Accordingly, we deny the petition

for writ of mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice

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