In Re: Robert Boyler Appeal from 276th District Court of Titus County (memorandum opinion by chief justice iii morriss)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-14-00146-CR IN RE: ROBERT BOYLER Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION By way of petition for writ of mandamus, Robert Boyler, 1 an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, D.B. Ellis Unit, asks that this Court direct the 176th Judicial District Court of Titus County, Texas, to rule on Boyler s motion for a speedy revocation hearing or dismiss the probation as time served. We may grant a petition for writ of mandamus when the relator shows there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm and that the act to be compelled is purely ministerial. Aranda v. Dist. Clerk, 207 S.W.3d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). In proper cases, mandamus may issue to compel a trial court to act. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); see also Eli Lily & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992) (orig proceeding) (trial court abuses discretion by refusing to conduct hearing and render decision on motion); Chiles v. Schuble, 788 S.W.2d 205, 207 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding) (mandamus appropriate remedy to require trial court to hold hearing and exercise discretion). Trial courts are not required to consider or rule on a motion unless the motion is called to the court s attention. See Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662. Boyler s petition is not accompanied by any proof that he brought this matter to the attention of the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1). Boyler s petition is not accompanied by a certified or sworn copy of the motion that is the subject of his complaint, as is required by the Texas rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Therefore, we are unable to determine if this 1 In the documents provided, the relator s name is spelled as both Boyler and Bolyer. 2 matter has been brought to the trial court s attention or whether the trial court has had a reasonable time in which to rule on Boyler s motion. It is the relator s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Here, the record is inadequate to grant mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny Boyler s petition for writ of mandamus. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: August 28, 2014 August 29, 2014 Do Not Publish 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
