In Re Reidie James Jackson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 24, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00022-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00022-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 Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

Relator Reidie James Jackson has 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 his motion to dismiss and motion for expedited hearing, and that he is “confined

in prison on an illegal, void order.”

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, 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) 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). Merely filing a document with the district clerk

neither imputes the district clerk’s knowledge of the filing to the trial court nor equates to

a request for the trial court to 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. Relator has provided this Court with copies of: (1) his motion to

dismiss and a draft order granting the motion to dismiss; (2) his motion for expedited

hearing and a draft order granting that motion; and (3) a letter dated December 30, 2024,

3 to the trial court requesting the trial to rule on his motion for immediate release. None of

these documents are file-stamped or otherwise indicate that the trial court received, was

aware of, and was asked to rule on the motions at issue. Accordingly, relator has not

established the right to mandamus relief. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed on the 24th day of January, 2025.