In Re Thomas Florence--Appeal from of County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 7, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-10-00924-CR IN RE THOMAS FLORENCE, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION On September 27, 2010, relator Thomas Florence filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov t Code Ann. ยง22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the court to order a factfinding or probable cause hearing, order the State to produce the Febuary [sic] 26, 2010; Febuary [sic] 27, 2010 hospital records from Ben Taub to this court. Relator further requests that this court order petitioner released squash [sic] invalid indictment with prejudice. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig.proceeding). Consideration of a motion that is properly filed and before the court is a ministerial act. State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App.1987) (orig.proceeding). A relator must establish the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so. In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App. Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding) (relator must show that trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on motion). Absent a showing the trial court is aware of and been asked to rule on relator s request, relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator s petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Frost, and Brown. Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 2
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.
