in Re: Steven E. Peek

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 18, 2010
• Docket: 06-10-00017-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                         In The

                                                Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                                                ______________________________

                                                             No. 06-10-00017-CR

                                                       IN RE:  STEVEN E. PEEK

                                                     Original Mandamus Proceeding

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

                                              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

                                                     MEMORANDUM  OPINION

            Relator, Steven E. Peek, has filed with this Court his petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondent, the Honorable Laurine Blake, to rule on a motion he filed pro se on August 14, 2009.

            In his Motion for Trial Transcripts and Subsidiary Court Record/Documents, Peek sought records relating to his December 10, 2008, conviction for the purpose of filing an application for writ of habeas corpus.  From the record he provided in support of his petition, it does not appear that Peek included a proposed order.  However, he does include in his record correspondence he sent seeking to follow up on the motion and requesting a ruling from the trial court.  In his petition, Peek asks this Court to direct Judge Blake to rule on his motion; he does not specifically seek an affirmative ruling.  In response to the petition, Respondent Judge Blake has provided this Court with a handwritten notation dated August 27, 2009, in which she refused Peek’s request.  It does not appear that Peek received a copy of this ruling either when the ruling was made or in response to his two subsequent inquiries into the matter.

            The relief requested has already been granted, rendering Peek’s petition moot.  See Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995) (holding that when court cannot take any

action that can effect the requested relief, it is proper for court to dismiss as moot the petition for writ of mandamus).  Having concluded that what Peek requests had already been completed––albeit without notice to him, we dismiss as moot his petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

Date Submitted:          February 17, 2010

Date Decided:             February 18, 2010

Do Not Publish