In Re: Refugio Padilla--Appeal from 41st District Court of El Paso County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

)

IN RE: REFUGIO PADILLA, ) No. 08-05-00180-CR

)

Relator. ) AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

)

)IN MANDAMUS

)

O P I N I O N

Relator Refugio Padilla has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, requesting that this Court order the Hon. Mary Anne Bramblett, 41st Judicial District Court, El Paso County, to issue a writ of habeas corpus and to conduct a hearing on the merits of his claims, as described in his petition for pretrial writ of habeas corpus filed on January 13, 2005, and to rule on various pro se motions complained-of therein. With regard to the motions, Relator states that he has filed several motions in all of the cause numbers and has been unsuccessful in obtaining a hearing and that the trial court refuses to even review any and all motions filed. // We observe from the statement of facts presented in Relator s petition that he is represented by appointed counsel in all of the pending cases.

To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, the relator must establish that (1) the act sought to be compelled is ministerial, and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. Dickens v. Court of Appeals for Second Supreme Judicial Dist., 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987).

To the extent that Relator asks this Court to order the trial court to grant his application for writ of habeas corpus, we conclude that we have no authority to order the trial court to rule in a particular manner. See In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). With regard to Relator s pro se motions in particular, because Relator is represented by counsel, the trial court has no duty to rule on his pro se motions. See Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272, 280 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977); Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). We observe that one of Relator s pro se motions seeks appointment of new counsel, however, this motion does not contain a file stamp date nor is there any other indication that it was received by the trial court.

As to Relator s application for writ of habeas corpus generally, while the application was received by the district clerk and file stamped on January 13, 2005, there is no indication that the trial court was made aware of the motion. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding)(filing the matter with the district clerk is not sufficient to impute knowledge of the pending pleading to the trial court such that it is made aware of it). Consequently, Relator has failed to establish that the trial court was made aware of the application or that the trial court s failure to rule on the pleading in less than four months is unreasonable. See In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d at 710-11, 711.

Accordingly, Relator s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

June 16, 2005

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)