In re Michael Davis Appeal from 228th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 27, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NOS. 14-15-00875-CR, 14-15-00876CR, and 14-15-00877-CR IN RE MICHAEL DAVIS, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 228th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 331288, 331289 & 331549 MEMORANDUM OPINION On October 14, 2015, relator Michael Davis filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Marc Carter, presiding judge of the 228th District Court of Harris County, to rule on his “Movant’s Motion for Access to the Plea Bargain.” “A party’s right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for some action and a refusal of that request.” In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding). In particular, the relator must show that the motion was filed and that he presented it to the trial court for a ruling. See In re Clewis, 14-10-00086-CV, 2010 WL 547087, at *1 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 18, 2010, orig. proceeding). Additionally, as the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). Relator attached to his petition his “Movant’s Motion for Access to the Plea Bargain” addressed to the trial court, dated September 21, 2015. But, there is no file stamp or any other evidence in the record that the motion was actually filed and presented to the trial court. The record does not show that relator requested a ruling on the motion. Because relator has not provided an adequate record showing that he is entitled to the relief he seeks, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Donovan. Do Not Publish — Tex.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.
