In Re Ronald Lee Alexander v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion issued April 30, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00424-CR ——————————— IN RE RONALD LEE ALEXANDER, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Ronald Lee Alexander, incarcerated1 and proceeding pro se, filed a

petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the trial court has “fail[ed] to do [its]

1 Relator appealed his conviction for the felony offense of capital murder, which was affirmed by this Court in 1999. See Alexander v. State, No. 01-98-00505-CR, 1999 WL 959235, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 21, 1999, no pet.) (not designated for publication). ministerial duty to rule on [relator’s] pro se motions.”2 However, relator’s

mandamus petition fails to identify, or provide a record of, the pro se motions for

which he alleges the trial court has failed to rule. Nor does relator’s mandamus

petition establish that such motions were filed and brought to the attention of the

trial court. See In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2020, orig. proceeding). Despite that, relator’s petition requested that this Court

grant his request for mandamus relief and direct the trial court to “rule on all his

pro-se motions pending in the” trial court.

Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that he has failed to

establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(l),

52.7(a)(1); see also In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 73. Accordingly, we deny relator’s

petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We dismiss any pending

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Gunn, Caughey, and Morgan.

Do not publish.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

2 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Ronald Lee Alexander, cause number 779738, pending in the 176th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Nikita V. Harmon presiding.