In Re King-Joseph: Penson II v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Docket: 06-26-00007-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00007-CV

IN RE KING-JOSEPH: PENSON II

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin MEMORANDUM OPINION

Via his petition for a writ of mandamus of January 23, 2026, Relator, King-Joseph:

Penson II, asserts that the trial court has not timely ruled on his motion for summary judgment.

Relator asks this Court to remedy this alleged failure of the trial court. The motion at issue was

filed on December 17, 2025. Relator has not made the showing required to obtain the relief he

seeks.

“Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of

discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate

remedy at law.” In re Good Shepherd Hosp., Inc., 572 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2019, orig. proceeding) (citing Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam)

(orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)).

“Trial courts are required to consider and rule on motions within a reasonable time.” In re

Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding).

Often, “[d]etermining what time period is reasonable is not subject to exact formulation.”

Id. However, the Legislature has recently provided statutory timelines for considering motions

for summary judgment. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 23.303 (Supp.).

The petition does not show that the trial court exceeded the time permitted by Section

23.303. We deny Relator’s requested mandamus relief.

Jeff Rambin Justice

Date Submitted: February 4, 2026 Date Decided: February 5, 2026 2