In Re Reidie James Jackson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 12, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00586-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00586-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE REIDIE JAMES JACKSON

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

On December 2, 2024, relator Reidie James Jackson filed a pro se petition for writ

of mandamus through which he asserts that the trial court has failed to comply with its

ministerial duty to rule on motions “that are essential to execution of the [s]ettlement

[a]greement [c]ontract.” Relator has also filed a motion for accelerated review of his

petition for writ of mandamus.

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). “Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited

circumstances.” State ex rel. Wice v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps., 581 S.W.3d 189, 193

(Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (orig. proceeding). In a criminal case, the relator must establish

both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary

or judicial decision, and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged

harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding);

In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).

If the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should

be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d

207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

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

relief. See In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, orig.

proceeding); In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021,

orig. proceeding). This burden includes providing a sufficient record to establish the right

to mandamus relief. In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d at 927; In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d at 839;

see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (delineating the required contents for the appendix in an

original proceeding), R. 52.7(a) (providing that the relator “must file” a record including

specific matters); 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.”).

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

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

rule. 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); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d

225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Stated otherwise, a 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) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable

time. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d 320, 321 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, 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 court rule on the motion. In re Pete, 589 S.W.3d at 322;

In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d at 107. Whether a reasonable time for the trial court to act has

lapsed is dependent upon the circumstances of each case. See In re Blakeney, 254

S.W.3d at 662; In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228.

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. Here, relator has provided this Court with: (1) a copy of a June 28,

2024 letter from the District Clerk of Matagorda County, Texas, indicating the receipt and

filing of relator’s “Motion for Execution of Settlement Agreement,” and (2) a copy of

3 relator’s “Motion for Immediate Release Pursuant [to] Settlement Contract,” which is not

file-stamped. In short, relator has not included any documentation to show that the trial

court received, was aware of, and was asked but refused to rule on any motions.

Accordingly, relator has not established the right to mandamus relief. We deny the petition

for writ of mandamus. We dismiss the motion for accelerated review as moot.

JAIME TIJERINA Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the 12th day of December, 2024.