Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted and Memorandum Opinion filed May 24, 2007.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-07-00222-CV
____________
IN RE WOODROW MILLER, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On March 15, 2007, relator Woodrow Miller, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court, seeking an order compelling respondent, the Honorable Belinda Hill, presiding judge of the 230th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, to issue a written ruling on relator=s habeas corpus petition. See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon 2004). For the reasons discussed below, we conditionally grant relator=s request for mandamus relief.
Relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on September 8, 2006, regarding a conviction for which he received deferred adjudication.[1] See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann art. 11.072 (Vernon 2005). According to relator, the trial court orally denied his request for habeas corpus relief on December 14, 2006. Shortly after, relator filed a motion for written order granting or denying relief and requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. Relator followed up this request with a motion in arrest of ruling denying the writ of habeas corpus and a supplemental motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In his petition for writ of mandamus, relator asserts that the trial court has failed to issue a written order or findings and conclusions and that this is an abuse of discretion for which he has no adequate remedy. We requested a response to the petition from the Harris County District Attorney=s Office, but none has been received.
In a criminal matter, this court can grant mandamus relief when a relator shows that (1) the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial, and (2) he has no adequate remedy at law. See Aranda v. Dist. Clerk, 207 S.W.3d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Also, when a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of considering and resolving it is ministerial, not discretionary. Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134B35 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).
Article 11.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes procedures regarding habeas corpus relief in a felony or misdemeanor case, when the petitioner seeks relief from an order or a judgment of conviction ordering community supervision. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072, ' 1 (Vernon 2005). Section 7(a) of that statute provides, in part, as follows:
Sec. 7. (a) If the court determines from the face of an application or documents attached to the application that the applicant is manifestly entitled to no relief, the court shall enter a written order denying the application as frivolous. In any other case, the court shall enter a written order including findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Id. ' 7(a). A petitioner may appeal the trial court=s ruling on the habeas corpus petition if it is denied in whole or in part. Id. Therefore, under the statute=s plain language, the trial court must issue a written order on a habeas corpus petition filed under article 11.072.
Here, although the trial court has orally ruled on relator=s habeas corpus petition, it has failed to issue a written order. This is an abuse of discretion for which relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant relator=s petition for writ of mandamus and order the trial court to issue a written order on relator=s application for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ of mandamus will issue only if the trial court fails to comply with this opinion.
PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion filed May 24, 2007.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Edelman.
[1]The mandamus record reflects that the trial court deferred adjudication against relator for indecency with a child and placed him on community supervision for seven years.