in Re Thomas Florence

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 7, 2010
Docket14-10-00924-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Thomas Florence (in Re Thomas Florence) 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 Thomas Florence, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 7, 2010.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-10-00924-CR

In Re Thomas Florence, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM  OPINION

On September 27, 2010, relator Thomas Florence filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the “court” to “order a factfinding or probable cause hearing, order the State to produce the Febuary [sic] 26, 2010; Febuary [sic] 27, 2010 hospital records from Ben Taub to this court.”  Relator further requests that this court “order petitioner released squash [sic] invalid indictment with prejudice.” 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision.  State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig.proceeding).  Consideration of a motion that is properly filed and before the court is a ministerial act.  State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App.1987) (orig.proceeding).  A relator must establish the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so.  In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding) (relator must show that trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on motion).

Absent a showing the trial court is aware of and been asked to rule on relator’s request, relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus.  Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Frost, and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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

Related

In Re Villarreal
96 S.W.3d 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
In Re Keeter
134 S.W.3d 250 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
State Ex Rel. Curry v. Gray
726 S.W.2d 125 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Texarkana
236 S.W.3d 207 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Thomas Florence, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-thomas-florence-texapp-2010.