in Re Theodis Dodson

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 10, 2014
Docket02-14-00094-CV
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
in Re Theodis Dodson, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

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

In Re Hearn
137 S.W.3d 681 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
O'CONNOR v. First Court of Appeals
837 S.W.2d 94 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Barnes v. State
832 S.W.2d 424 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Theodis Dodson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-theodis-dodson-texapp-2014.