in Re: Ray Dale Hooks

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 7, 2005
Docket06-05-00132-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re: Ray Dale Hooks (in Re: Ray Dale Hooks) 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.

Bluebook
in Re: Ray Dale Hooks, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

6-96-028-CV Long Trusts v. Dowd


In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-05-00132-CV



IN RE:

RAY DALE HOOKS





Original Mandamus Proceeding








Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss



MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Ray Dale Hooks has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. Hooks alleges he has filed with the trial court a request for DNA testing as provided by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01 (Vernon Supp. 2005). Hooks now claims that, for more than a year, the trial court has failed to rule on this motion.

             When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, considering and ruling on that motion is a ministerial act, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re Kleven, 100 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding); see also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion). Before a relator may be entitled to mandamus relief, however, he or she must provide a sufficient record to show the motion was presented to the trial court and that court refused to act. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 n.2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding) (filing document with district clerk's office does not demonstrate that motion has been brought to trial court's attention).

            Hooks' petition for mandamus relief is not accompanied by a certified or sworn copy of the motion that is the subject of his complaint, as is required by Rule 52.3(j)(1)(A) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)(1)(A).

            Accordingly, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice


Date Submitted:          December 6, 2005

Date Decided:             December 7, 2005



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Villarreal
96 S.W.3d 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
In Re Kleven
100 S.W.3d 643 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall
829 S.W.2d 157 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re: Ray Dale Hooks, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ray-dale-hooks-texapp-2005.