In re Manuel Quinones--Appeal from 79th Judicial District Court of Jim Wells County

Annotate this Case
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-04-00503-CV
IN RE Manuel QUINONES
Original Mandamus Proceeding (1)

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 4, 2004

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator, Manuel Quinones, seeks mandamus relief directing the trial court to issue a bench warrant and schedule a hearing on relator's motion for show cause hearing. Quinones seeks a show cause hearing on whether his appointed attorney in a DNA testing proceeding is taking the necessary action. The copy of relator's motion attached to his petition is not file-stamped by the district clerk.

A trial judge has a duty to consider and rule on motions within a reasonable time. In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). To invoke this duty, however, the movant must show that he brought the motion to the trial judge's attention, and the trial judge failed or refused to rule. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). Merely filing the matter with the district clerk does not impute knowledge of the pleading to the trial court. In re Flores, No. 04-03-00449-CV, 2003 WL 21480964 (Tex. App.--San Antonio June 25, 2003, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication). In this case, Quinones has failed to provide proof of the date on which he filed the motion or evidence that he has brought the motion to the trial judge's attention. Accordingly, Quinones has failed to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief, and Quinones' petition is denied.

PER CURIAM

1. This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 98-12-10057, styled The State of Texas v. Manuel Quinones, pending in the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas, the Honorable Ricardo H. Garcia presiding.

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.