Opinion issued July 17, 2025

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00222-CR ——————————— IN RE NATHANIEL RICHARDSON, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, requesting that we direct the trial court judge to rule on several motions related to his underlying case.1 Relator has an appeal pending in this Court arising from the same trial court case that is the subject of this petition for writ of mandamus. See Ex parte Richardson, No. 01-25-00203-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (pending).

The underlying case is Ex parte Nathaniel Richardson, cause number 967408B, pending in the 183rd District Court of Harris County, the Honorable Lance Long presiding.

Based on information provided by relator, he seeks “the same crucial relief” in this mandamus proceeding as he does in the pending appeal. Thus, relator has an appellate remedy rendering mandamus inappropriate. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (quoting State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 484 (Tex. 1984) and holding mandamus unavailable if relator has “a clear and adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal”). Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any further issues relating to the underlying case can be resolved in relator’s appeal. We also dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Morgan.