IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-78,769-03
IN RE RANDY HENDERSON, Relator
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
CAUSE NO. 03-F-0146-202 IN THE 202ND DISTRICT COURT
FROM BOWIE COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus pursuant
to the original jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed a motion for judgment nunc
pro tunc on or about October 20, 2014, and the trial court has not taken action on the motion. Relator
presented his claim to the Sixth Court of Appeals, but was denied relief. In re Randy Henderson, No.
06-15-00034-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 10, 2015) (not designated for publication). A trial
court has a ministerial duty to rule “upon a motion that is properly and timely presented to it for a
ruling.” State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist., 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
Relator has alleged facts which, if true, could entitle him to mandamus relief.
2
In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the Judge of the 202nd
District Court of Bowie County, shall file a response addressing whether Relator has properly filed
a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in that court. If relator has filed such a motion, the respondent
shall address whether the motion has been ruled upon and, if the motion has not been ruled upon,
the respondent shall discuss the rationale for not taking action on the motion. Respondent’s answer
shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order. This application for leave to file a writ
of mandamus will be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted his response.
Filed: August 26, 2015
Do not publish