in Re Theodis Dodson
This text of in Re Theodis Dodson (in Re Theodis Dodson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00094-CV
IN RE THEODIS DODSON RELATOR
------------
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Relator Theodis Dodson asks this court to compel the trial court to rule on
his motion for DNA testing under chapter 64 of the code of criminal procedure.
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01 (West Supp. 2013).
Presentment of the motion to the trial court is a prerequisite to mandamus
relief. See O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992)
(“Mandamus will issue when there is a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary
act, a demand for performance, and a refusal.”); In re Dodson, No. 02-09-00190-
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d). CV, 2009 WL 2138840, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 14, 2009, orig.
proceeding). That is, the movant is required to show that the matter was brought
to the attention of the trial court and the trial court failed or refused to rule.
Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426–27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992,
orig. proceeding). Merely filing the matter with the district clerk is not sufficient to
impute knowledge of the pending pleading to the trial court. In re Hearn, 137
S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). The movant
must request a hearing on the motion with the trial court or otherwise bring the
motion to the trial court’s attention. See id. (stating that relator attempted to bring
his motions to the trial court’s attention by filing a letter with the district clerk
“asking that she bring his motions to the attention of the trial court and request
the court to rule”).
Nothing in the record here indicates that relator’s motion has been
presented to the trial court. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is
denied.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.
DAUPHINOT, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
DELIVERED: April 10, 2014
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Theodis Dodson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-theodis-dodson-texapp-2014.