In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-15-00176-CR
IN RE WILLIAM ISAAC HOFF
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
MEMORANDUM OPINION
William Isaac Hoff filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial
court’s failure to rule on a motion to dismiss. We deny the requested relief.
Hoff complains that the presiding judge of the County Court at Law of Cass County has
failed to rule on his motion to dismiss an assault charge involving family violence. Hoff attached
a copy of the motion to dismiss he allegedly filed in the trial court, and there is an unsworn
declaration dated July 3, 2015, appended to that motion. However, the motion to dismiss itself is
undated and bears no “filed” stamp or other notation demonstrating that it was actually filed in the
trial court. Hoff included in the appendix filed with his petition a copy of a letter dated July 14,
2015, from the Cass County Clerk addressed to a Mr. Bobby Hodge stating, “I have forwarded his
Motion to Dismiss to the County Court at Law for the Judge to review and make a determination
on the Dismissal that Mr. Hoff has filed.” Hoff contends that the respondent has had ample time
to rule on his motion but has failed to do so.
We may grant a petition for a writ of mandamus when the relator shows that “‘there is no
adequate remedy at law’” to redress the alleged harm and “‘that the act . . . to be compelled is
purely ministerial.’” Aranda v. Dist. Clerk, 207 S.W.3d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting Winters v. Presiding Judge of Criminal Dist. Court No. Three,
118 S.W.3d 773, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (orig. proceeding)).
A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on a properly filed, pending motion
within a reasonable time. See In re Shaw, 175 S.W.3d 901, 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005,
orig. proceeding). While we have mandamus jurisdiction to direct the trial court to make a
2
decision, we may not tell the trial court what that decision should be. In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d
659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). “Any such mandamus relief, however,
must be predicated on an adequate showing that a request for a ruling has been properly and
adequately presented to the trial court and that the court has declined to rule.” Id.
Although the motion to dismiss bears no “filed” stamp, the appendix to Hoff’s petition
includes documentation establishing that the motion was transmitted to the County Court at Law
of Cass County by the Cass County Clerk. This documentation does not establish that the motion
was brought to the attention of the trial court with a request for a ruling. See id. at 661 (mandamus
relief must be predicated on adequate showing that request for ruling has been presented to trial
court).
Here, the style of Hoff’s petition identifies the respondent as the County Court at Law of
Cass County. In the body of the petition, however, Hoff names “Becky Wilbanks, Judge of the
Cass County Court in Her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Cass County Court of Law” as the
respondent. This Court takes judicial notice1 of the fact that Donald W. Dowd is the judge of the
County Court at Law of Cass County and that Becky Wilbanks is the Cass County Judge. See
TEX. R. EVID. 201. Moreover, the Fifth Judicial District Court of Cass County and the County
Court at Law of Cass County have concurrent jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases not involving
official misconduct and over all felony cases except capital murder. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§ 24.105(b) (West 2004) (giving the Fifth Judicial District Court the jurisdiction of a county court),
1
See TEX. R. EVID. 201.
3
§ 25.0362 (West Supp. 2014) (giving the Cass County Court at Law concurrent jurisdiction with
the Fifth Judicial District Court in certain misdemeanor and felony cases). Additionally, the
County Court for Cass County “has the general jurisdiction of a probate court but has no other
civil or criminal jurisdiction except juvenile jurisdiction as provided by Section 26.042(b) and
criminal jurisdiction to receive and enter guilty pleas in misdemeanor cases.” TEX. GOV’T CODE
ANN. § 26.134 (West Supp. 2014).
The offense of assault family violence can be charged either as a misdemeanor or felony
offense, depending on the circumstances. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01 (West Supp. 2014).
Thus, it is conceivable that Hoff’s case could be pending in either the County Court at Law of Cass
County or in the Fifth Judicial District Court of Cass County. Hoff’s petition does not clearly
identify the proper respondent, having variously named both the Cass County Judge and the
County Court at Law of Cass County.
In order to satisfy the presentment requirement, Hoff was required to (1) bring his motion
to the attention of the proper trial court and (2) make a clear request for a ruling on that motion.
See Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662.2 This he failed to do.
2
Typically, presentment may be accomplished by means of a letter from the relator directed to the proper trial court
enclosing the motion on which a ruling is requested and clearly requesting a ruling.
4
Because Hoff has not established a right to mandamus relief, we deny his petition for a writ
of mandamus.
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice
Date Submitted: October 27, 2015
Date Decided: October 28 2015
Do Not Publish
5