In re Andrew Pete Appeal from 179th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed as Moot in Part; Denied in Part; and Opinion filed July 15, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-21-00073-CR IN RE ANDREW PETE, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 179th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1535047 MEMORANDUM OPINION On Monday, February 8, 2021, relator Andrew Pete filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Ana Martinez, presiding judge of the 179th District Court of Harris County, to rule on motions he filed in the trial court on January 6, 2001. The trial court signed an order ruling on relator’s motions, save one, on May 21, 2021. Because respondent has ruled on relator’s pending motions numbered one through five, relator’s petition is moot in part and this Court no longer has jurisdiction to grant relief. See Tex. A&M Univ.–Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d 289, 290–91 (Tex. 2011). Accordingly, relator’s petition is dismissed as moot in part. As to the motion numbered six, the trial court stated, “No ruling at this time. Parties will brief the Court on this issue.” To obtain mandamus relief for the refusal to rule, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. In re Coleman, No. 14-12-00159CR, 2012 WL 681821, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 1, 2012) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not established the trial court has refused to rule, only that the trial court has not yet ruled. Accordingly, six relator’s petition is denied in part. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Hassan. Do Not Publish — Tex.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.