DENIED and Opinion Filed September 15, 2021
SIn The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00435-CV
IN RE HOWARD HOLLAND, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 422nd Judicial District Court
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 31610-422
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Garcia
Relator Howard Holland seeks mandamus relief to compel the trial court to
rule on a motion he filed several months ago. We deny relief because Holland has
not shown that the trial court has jurisdiction to rule on his motion.
I. Background
In November 2020, Holland filed in the trial court a motion entitled “Pro Se
Motion For The 422nd District Court To Take Judicial Notice Of The Attached
Exhibits In The Interest Of Justice Due From Constitutional Violations.” The motion
bears the style Ex parte Howard Holland and the trial-court case number 31610-422.
Holland does not explain what kind of case he filed the motion in, but online court
records indicate that number 31610-422 is a criminal case, The State of Texas v.
Howard Holland.1 Holland’s mandamus papers suggest that he is currently an
inmate in the Texas prison system.
The mandamus record also includes copies of three letters Holland sent to the
trial court requesting a hearing and a ruling on his motion.
We requested a response from real party in interest and respondent, but none
was filed.
II. Analysis
To obtain mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator must show that he
seeks to compel performance of a ministerial act and that he has no adequate remedy
at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig.
proceeding). Consideration of a motion that is properly filed and before the court is
a ministerial act. In re Prado, 522 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.). The relator bears the burden of providing a record sufficient
to establish his right to relief. Id.
To obtain relief from a trial court’s refusal to rule on a motion, the relator must
establish that the trial court had a legal duty to rule on the motion, was asked to rule
on the motion, and failed to do so within a reasonable time. See id. Generally, a trial
court has no authority to rule on a motion that is filed after a criminal case has ended
1
See https://txkaufmanodyprod.tylerhost.net/PublicAccess/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=3861984 (last
visited on Aug. 24, 2021).
–2–
and the court’s general jurisdiction has expired. See In re Hogg-Bey, No. 05-15-
01421-CV, 2015 WL 9591997, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 30, 2015, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) (noting that trial courts also have special jurisdiction to
address certain collateral post-conviction matters). Moreover, the court is not
required to advise a party when the court determines it lacks authority to take action
on the motion, although the preferred and better practice is to give the party such
notice. See id. at *2.
Because the mandamus record does not show that the trial court has
jurisdiction to rule on Holland’s motion, Holland has not shown that he has a right
to mandamus relief. See id. (denying mandamus relief on similar facts; In re Embry,
No. 05-16-00211-CV, 2016 WL 1179545, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 28, 2016,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (same).
III. Disposition
For the foregoing reasons, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
/Dennise Garcia/
DENNISE GARCIA
JUSTICE
210435F.P05
–3–