Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May 10,
2012.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-12-00397-CR
IN RE LEON HARRISON, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
230th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 635921
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 30, 2012, relator Leon Harrison 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 Belinda Hill, presiding judge of
the 230th District Court of Harris County to hold a hearing on his pending motion to
appoint a new attorney.
Relator is attempting to file his third motion for post-conviction DNA testing. See
Harrison v. State, No. 14-07-00287-CR; 2008 WL 220711 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] Jan. 29, 2008, pet. ref’d) and Harrison v. State, No. 14-02-01239-CR; 2003 WL
22902265 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 9, 2003, pet. ref’d). The respondent
appointed counsel to represent relator, but relator has requested new counsel. Relator
attached to his petition a document entitled, “Leave For Counsel of Choice to Conduct
Desired Presence Transports.” He contends the respondent has failed to hold a hearing
on the motion or rule on the motion.
Consideration of a motion that is properly filed and before the court is a
ministerial act. State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App.1987)
(orig. proceeding). A relator must establish the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on
the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so. In re Keeter, 134
S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding). A relator must show that
the trial court received, was aware of, and asked to rule on the motion. In re Villarreal,
96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). The document
attached to relator’s motion is not file-stamped by the district clerk, nor does the petition
reflect that the court was asked to rule on the motion and failed to do so.
Relator has not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of
mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Frost, Jamison, and McCally.
Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
2