Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed August 18, 2011.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-11-00671-CR
____________
IN RE AHMED PEYRAVI, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
339th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 919251
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator Ahmed Peyravi filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, Peyravi asks this court to compel the court reporter to furnish the reporter’s record in his appeal, pending under our number 14-10-01083-CR, from the October 12, 2010, denial of Peyravi’s motion for DNA testing.[1]
The appeal in 14-10-01083-CR was abated and remanded for a determination of whether there was a reporter’s record made from any hearing on Peyravi’s motion for DNA testing, and if so, which court reporter was responsible for the record. On August 4, 2011, Pam Knobloch, the official court reporter for the 339th District Court, filed a sworn statement that she had conferred with the trial judge and Linda Hacker, the former official court reporter, and confirmed that no hearing was reported on Peyravi’s motion for DNA testing. The appeal has been reinstated and appellant’s brief is due September 8, 2011.
This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code, which expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or county court judge in the court of appeals’ district, and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals' jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. To be entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
Peyravi’s remedy to compel the filing of a reporter’s record in his pending appeal is found in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(c), which grants an appellate court substantial authority to assure the timely filing of the reporter’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c); see also In re Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex. 1998). Under the authority of Rule 35.3(c), this court determined that no record was made in connection with Peyvani’s motion for DNA testing.
Accordingly, we deny Peyvani’s petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] This court affirmed Peyravi’s 2003 murder conviction. See Peyravi v. State, No. 14-03-00452-CR, 2004 WL 1834288 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 17, 2004, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).