In Re Matthew Flowers, Relator v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Matthew Flowers, Relator v. the State of Texas (In Re Matthew Flowers, Relator v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-25-00025-CR
IN RE MATTHEW FLOWERS, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
January 17, 2025 Before, QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Pending before the Court is the pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator,
Matthew Lee Flowers. Through it, he seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Honorable
Steven Emmert, presiding judge of the 31st District Court, to rule on relator’s Petition for
Expunction. We deny the petition.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d
619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). A writ of mandamus will issue only when the
relator has no adequate remedy by appeal and the trial court committed a clear abuse of
discretion. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig.
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites. In re
Fitzgerald, 429 S.W.3d 886, 891 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2014, orig. proceeding.). The record before us shows that relator petitioned for expunction on June 7, 2024.
The trial court scheduled a hearing to be held on December 23, 2024. On January 13,
2025, relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus directing Judge Emmert to rule on his
Petition for Expunction.
A reasonable time for ruling on relator’s Petition for Expunction has not passed.
“Trial courts are generally granted considerable discretion when it comes to managing
their dockets.” In re Conner, 458 S.W.3d 532, 534 (Tex. 2015). A trial court has a
reasonable time to perform its ministerial duty of considering and ruling on a motion. In
re Smith, No. 07-19-00402-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 775, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
Jan. 28, 2020, orig. proceeding). Whether the trial court has had a reasonable time within
which to rule depends on the circumstances of each case, and “no bright-line demarcates
the boundaries of a reasonable time period.” In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). The scope depends on several factors, including
the court’s overt refusal to act on the motion, the state of the court’s docket, and the
existence of other judicial and administrative matters which must be addressed first. Id.
at 228-29.
It has been a mere three-and-a-half weeks since the trial court’s scheduled
hearing, during which many court actions may have been halted due to the holidays.
Respondent has not had a reasonable time within which to consider and rule on the
Petition for Expunction. Further, relator’s petition is deficient in most of the mandatory
requirements of Rule 52.3. See In re Smith, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 775, at *2 (denying
petition for writ of mandamus for failure to comply with requirements of Rule 52).
2 Relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. The Clerk of this Court is
directed to serve Judge Emmert with a copy of this order and the petition for writ of
mandamus in a manner affording Judge Emmert actual notice of same.
Brian Quinn Chief Justice
Do not publish.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Matthew Flowers, Relator v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-matthew-flowers-relator-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.