In Re Alphonso Grant--Appeal from 183rd District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed September
22, 2011.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-11-00803-CR
____________
IN RE ALPHONSO GRANT, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
183rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 605264
MEMORANDUM
OPINION
On September 15, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.
See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator complains that
respondent, the Honorable Vanessa Valasquez, presiding judge of the 183rd District Court
of Harris County, has failed to rule on his motion to obtain trial records.
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) (op. on reh'g). 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). A relator
must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and asked to rule on the motion. In
re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App. -- Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). Filing
something with the district clerk's office does not mean the trial court is aware of it; nor is
the clerk's knowledge imputed to the trial court. Id. at n. 2.
Relator has not provided file-stamped copies of his motion demonstrating it is
actually pending in the trial court. Absent a showing the trial court is aware of and been
asked to rule on his motion, 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 Brown, Boyce, and McCally.
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.
