Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2005

in Re: Ray Dale Hooks

in Re: Ray Dale Hooks
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided December 7, 2005

in Re: Ray Dale Hooks

Opinion

6-96-028-CV Long Trusts v. Dowd









In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-05-00132-CV

______________________________




IN RE:

RAY DALE HOOKS






                                                                                                                                                             

Original Mandamus Proceeding






                                                                                                                                                                                        



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

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss




MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Ray Dale Hooks has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. Hooks alleges he has filed with the trial court a request for DNA testing as provided by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01 (Vernon Supp. 2005). Hooks now claims that, for more than a year, the trial court has failed to rule on this motion.

             When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, considering and ruling on that motion is a ministerial act, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re Kleven, 100 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding); see also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (holding trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion). Before a relator may be entitled to mandamus relief, however, he or she must provide a sufficient record to show the motion was presented to the trial court and that court refused to act. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 n.2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding) (filing document with district clerk's office does not demonstrate that motion has been brought to trial court's attention).

            Hooks' petition for mandamus relief is not accompanied by a certified or sworn copy of the motion that is the subject of his complaint, as is required by Rule 52.3(j)(1)(A) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)(1)(A).

 

 

 

            Accordingly, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus.

 

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice


Date Submitted:          December 6, 2005

Date Decided:             December 7, 2005






Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.