In Re James Thompson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 03-25-00401-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00401-CV

In re James Thompson

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BASTROP COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator James Thompson, an inmate in Bastrop County, has filed a pro se

submission with this Court complaining of the trial court’s alleged failure or refusal to respond to

his written request for a speedy trial for more than two years. We treat the submission as a

petition for writ of mandamus and deny the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

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

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex.

App.–Amarillo 2004, 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 this

regard, the relator must provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to establish his right

to mandamus relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661–62

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with

petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”), 52.7(a) (specifying required contents for

record), 52.3(k) (specifying required contents for appendix). When a mandamus petition is

based on an allegation that a trial court has failed to rule on a properly filed motion, the relator

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) either refused to rule on the motion or failed to rule within a reasonable

time. In re Whitfield, No. 03-18-00564-CV, 2018 WL 4140735, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin

Aug. 29, 2018, no pet.) (citing In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003,

orig. proceeding)).

Thompson has failed to provide this Court with a record or a certified or

file-stamped copy of any submission allegedly pending before the trial court, so there is no way

for us to determine when or even if the motion for speedy trial was filed properly in the court

below. Indeed, it is unclear from Thompson’s petition whether he even claims to have properly

filed a motion for the relief sought, as he claims to have “invoked [his] right to a speedy trial by

way of two letters,” one to “the clerk of the Bastrop County Courthouse,” and the other to his

“attorney at the time.” Thus, he has failed to show that a proper filing is pending before the trial

court or that the court is aware of the filing and has been asked to rule. See In re Sarkissian,

243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding) (observing that mandamus

record failed to establish that relator requested ruling or called motion to trial court's attention

and 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”).

On this record, we conclude that relator has failed to show entitlement to

mandamus relief. Accordingly, his petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.8(a).

2 __________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis

Filed: July 17, 2025