In Re Sidney Earl Parker v. the State of Texas

CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
DecidedApril 3, 2026
Docket03-26-00276-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re Sidney Earl Parker v. the State of Texas (In Re Sidney Earl Parker v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Sidney Earl Parker v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-26-00276-CV

In re Sidney Earl Parker

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Sidney Earl Parker, an inmate with the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s alleged

failure or refusal to rule on his motion for a hearing transcript pending since September 15, 2025.

For the reasons discussed herein, we deny the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

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

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex.

App.–Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); see also 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”). In this regard, the

relator must provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus

relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 661–62 (Tex. App.–

Texarkana 2008, no pet.); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that

was filed in any underlying proceeding”). When a mandamus petition is based on an allegation

that a trial court has failed to rule on a properly filed motion, 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) either refused to rule on the motion or failed to rule within a reasonable time. In re Whitfield,

No. 03-18-00564-CV, 2018 WL 4140735, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 29, 2018, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (citing In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding)).

Parker has failed to provide this Court with copies of any correspondence with the

trial judge (or appropriate court coordinator) expressly requesting a hearing on the motion. On

this record, we conclude that relator has failed to show entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, his petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis

Filed: April 3, 2026

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

Related

In Re Davidson
153 S.W.3d 490 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
In Re Keeter
134 S.W.3d 250 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Barnes v. State
832 S.W.2d 424 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re Sidney Earl Parker v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sidney-earl-parker-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp3-2026.