In Re Willie Otis Harris v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00161-CR

In re Willie Otis Harris

Original Proceeding

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Willie Otis Harris filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus.

See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; TEX. R. APP. P. 52. In the petition, Relator

asks this Court to direct the Honorable Grace Pandithurai, Judge of the 443rd

District Court of Ellis County, to “expedite this court proceeding” and/or to rule

on his “motions for suppression of evidence filed that have not been answered.”

Relator has the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to

establish his right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7. To be entitled

to mandamus relief, the relator must show that (1) he has no adequate remedy

at law to redress his alleged harm, and (2) what he seeks to compel is a

ministerial act, not a discretionary act. In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704

(Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). An act is ministerial if the relator can show a clear right to the relief sought, meaning that the merits of the relief

sought are beyond dispute. Id.

A court has a ministerial duty to rule on a properly filed and timely

presented motion, although it generally has no ministerial duty to rule a

certain way on that motion. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of

Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). To

obtain mandamus relief for a trial court’s refusal to rule on a motion, a relator

must establish that (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for

a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the

trial court refused to rule. In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2008, orig. proceeding). The mere filing of a motion with a trial court

clerk does not equate to a request that the trial court rule on the motion. Id.

Relator did not provide a record or appendix in support of his petition for

writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a); id. R. 52.3(k). We have no

evidence before us to determine whether the complained-of motions were

properly filed and have been pending for a reasonable time or whether Relator

requested a ruling on the motions that the trial court ignored or refused. See

In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d at 861. Furthermore, Relator’s petition suffers

from several other procedural deficiencies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(a), (d), (e)

In re Willie Otis Harris Page 2 (requiring proof that copies of documents presented to the court for filing were

served on all parties to the proceeding); id. R. 52.3(a) (requiring that the

petition include a complete list of parties); id. R. 52.3(b)-(c) (requiring that the

petition include a table of contents and index of authorities); id. R. 52.3(e)

(requiring a statement explaining the basis of the court’s jurisdiction); id. R.

52.3(j) (requiring that relator certify he reviewed the petition and concluded

that every factual statement is supported by competent evidence included in

the appendix or record).

Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 5, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Denied Do not publish OT06

In re Willie Otis Harris Page 3