Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-16-00756-CR
In re Hisidoro D. RAMON, Jr.
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2016
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On November 18, 2016, relator Hisidoro D. Ramon, Jr. filed a petition for writ of
mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion seeking certain
documents and evidence stemming from his prior criminal case. To be entitled to mandamus relief
compelling a trial court to rule on a properly filed motion, a relator must establish that 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 rule on the motion within a reasonable period of time. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). A relator must file with his mandamus petition a
certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that
was filed in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1), 52.3(k)(1)(A).
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. B15-33, styled State of Texas v. Hisidoro D. Ramon, Jr., filed in the 198th
Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas, the Honorable M. Rex Emerson presiding.
04-16-00756-CR
Here, relator has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Attached to
relator’s petition are copies of relator’s motion and three letters to the trial court clerk. However,
the mandamus record fails to show that relator’s motion was in fact filed with the trial court clerk.2
Furthermore, the mandamus record fails to show that the trial court was ever asked to rule on
relator’s motion or made aware of the motion. See In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding) (“The [relator] must show that the matter was brought to the
attention of the trial court and the trial court failed or refused to rule.”); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d
225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, original proceeding) (“[W]e know of no rule which imputes
the clerk’s knowledge to the trial court. Thus, it would be incumbent upon [relator] to illustrate
that the clerk informed the trial court of the motion or that the trial court otherwise obtained
knowledge of it.”). Because relator has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief,
his petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
Finally, relator moved for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus. No leave is
required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator’s
motion for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
2
Additionally, only one of the letters to the trial court clerk bears a file stamp indicating the letter was filed. In this
letter, relator asks the trial court clerk to file his notice of intent to file a petition for writ of mandamus and to bring
the notice to the trial court’s attention.
-2-