Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00170-CR
IN RE Abelardo G. GONZALEZ
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 4, 2018
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
Relator contends he filed a “Motion for Reconsideration and Objections” with the trial
court on August 29, 2017, in which he asked the trial court to reconsider an August 2, 2017 order
denying nine motions filed by relator. On March 21, 2018, relator filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in which he appears to argue the trial court abused its discretion by allowing his
“Motion for Reconsideration and Objections” to be overruled by operation of law. 2 For the
purpose of addressing relator’s argument, we will assume, without holding, that his “Motion for
Reconsideration and Objections” was overruled by operation of law.
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2008-CRR-000657-D1, 2008-CRR-000662-DR, 2008-CRR-000665-D1,
styled State of Texas v. Abelardo G. Gonzalez, pending in the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr. presiding.
2
Relator explains the almost six-month delay in filing his petition by stating he has been preoccupied with other
litigation.
04-18-00170-CR
To obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its
discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d
124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches
a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if
it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus
Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
A motion for reconsideration is equivalent to a motion for new trial. In re Dixon, 346
S.W.3d 906, 910 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2011, orig. proceeding). Trial courts are not required to rule
on motions for new trial because the passage of time may serve to overrule such motions by
operation of law. Hamilton v. Williams, 298 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet.
denied). Here, because the trial court had no duty to rule on relator’s “Motion for Reconsideration
and Objections,” it did not abuse its discretion by allowing the motion to be overruled by operation
of law. Accordingly, relator has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief. We,
therefore, DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish
-2-